Advertisement

The KEEP SIMPLEST Study: Improving In-House Delays and Periinterventional Management in Stroke Thrombectomy—A Matched Pair Analysis

  • Silvia SchönenbergerEmail author
  • Dorothea Weber
  • Matthias N. Ungerer
  • Johannes Pfaff
  • Simon Schieber
  • Lorenz Uhlmann
  • Pia Heidenreich
  • Martin Bendszus
  • Meinhard Kieser
  • Wolfgang Wick
  • Markus A. Möhlenbruch
  • Peter A. Ringleb
  • Julian Bösel
Original Article
  • 85 Downloads

Abstract

Background and Purpose

Although the treatment window for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has been extended in recent years, it has been proven that recanalizing treatment must be administered as soon as possible. We present a new standard operating procedure (SOP) to reduce in-house delay, standardize periinterventional management and improve patient safety during MT.

Methods

KEep Evaluating Protocol Simplification In Managing Periinterventional Light Sedation for Endovascular Stroke Treatment (KEEP SIMPLEST) was a prospective, single-center observational study aimed to compare aspects of periinterventional management in AIS patients treated according to our new SOP using a combination of esketamine and propofol with patients having been randomized into conscious sedation (CS) in the Sedation versus Intubation for Endovascular Stroke TreAtment (SIESTA) trial. Primary outcome was early neurological improvement at 24h using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and secondary outcomes were door-to-recanalization, recanalization grade, conversion rate and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 3 months.

Results

Door-to-recanalization time (128.6 ± 69.47 min vs. 156.8 ± 75.91 min; p = 0.02), mean duration of MT (92.01 ± 52 min vs. 131.9 ± 64.03 min; p < 0.001), door-to-first angiographic image (51.61 ± 31.7 min vs. 64.23 ± 21.53 min; p = 0.003) and computed tomography-to-first angiographic image time (31.61 ± 20.6 min vs. 44.61 ± 19.3 min; p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the group treated under the new SOP. There were no differences in early neurological improvement, mRS at 3 months or other secondary outcomes between the groups. Conversion rates of CS to general anesthesia were similar in both groups.

Conclusion

An SOP using a novel sedation regimen and optimization of equipment and procedures directed at a leaner, more integrative and compact periinterventional management can reduce in-house treatment delays significantly in stroke patients receiving thrombectomy in light sedation and demonstrated the safety and feasibility of our improved approach.

Keywords

Endovascular stroke treatment Thrombectomy Blood pressure Workflow Conscious sedation General anesthesia 

Notes

Author Contributions

SS designed the study protocol, organized the trial, screened and recruited study subjects, collected and interpreted data, did the literature research, and wrote the manuscript. DW did the statistical analysis, created tables, and wrote the statistical analysis section of the manuscript. MU collected and interpreted data, did the literature research, and wrote the manuscript. WW helped with study design, implementation and realization of the trial, interpreted data, planned the manuscript structure and critically reviewed the manuscript. JP, SS and PH collected data and critically reviewed the manuscript. LU helped with design of the statistical analysis and the statistical section of the manuscript and reviewed the manuscript. MM and MB contributed neuroradiological components to the study design, interpreted data, and critically reviewed the manuscript. PAR contributed to implementation and conduct of the trial, screened study subjects, interpreted data and critically reviewed the manuscript. MK provided the biostatistical contribution to the protocol, wrote the statistical analysis plan, organized statistical data analysis, wrote the statistical analysis section of the manuscript and critically reviewed the manuscript. JB had the idea for the trial, designed the study protocol, planned, prepared, organized, supervised the trial, screened study subjects, interpreted data, did the literature research and wrote the manuscript.

Source of Support

The study was performed with departmental funding only.

Conflicts of Interest

Silvia Schönenberger, Matthias Ungerer, Dorothea Weber, Lorenz Uhlmann, Meinhard Kieser and Wolfgang Wick have nothing to disclose. Johannes Pfaff has received travel and meeting expenses from Stryker, and MicroVention. Martin Bendszus has received grants and personal fees from Novartis, Guerbet and Codman, personal fees from Vascular Dynamics, Merck, BBraun, Roche, Teva, Springer and Bayer Vital, grants from Siemens, Hopp Foundation, European Union and DFG. Peter A. Ringleb has received personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Covidien and BMS. Markus Möhlenbruch has received personal fees from Codman, MicroVention, Phenox and Stryker. Julian Bösel has received personal fees (speaker honoraria and travel support) from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sedana Medical, CR Bard and Zoll.

Ethical Approval

The corresponding author confirms the adherence to ethical guidelines, and the trial was approved by our institutional review board (Ethikkommission Medizinische Fakultät Heidelberg, ID S-325/2015).

Supplementary material

12028_2018_667_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1103 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Lancet. 2016;387:1723–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saver JL, Goyal M, van der Lugt A, et al. Time to treatment with endovascular thrombectomy and outcomes from ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016;316:1279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jovin TG, Nogueira RG, Investigators D. Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1161–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albers GW, Marks MP, Kemp S, et al. Thrombectomy for stroke at 6 to 16 hours with selection by perfusion imaging. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:708–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mulder M, Jansen IGH, Goldhoorn RB, et al. Time to endovascular treatment and outcome in acute ischemic stroke: MR CLEAN Registry results. Circulation. 2018;138:232–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mehdiratta M, Woolfenden AR, Chapman KM, et al. Reduction in IV t-PA door to needle times using an Acute Stroke Triage Pathway. Can J Neurol Sci. 2006;33:214–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ribo M, Boned S, Rubiera M, et al. Direct transfer to angiosuite to reduce door-to-puncture time in thrombectomy for acute stroke. J Neurointerv Surg. 2018;10:221–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tan BYQ, Ngiam NJH, Sunny S, et al. Improvement in door-to-needle time in patients with acute ischemic stroke via a simple stroke activation protocol. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;27:1539–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang H, Thevathasan A, Dowling R, Bush S, Mitchell P, Yan B. Streamlining workflow for endovascular mechanical thrombectomy: lessons learned from a Comprehensive Stroke Center. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;26:1655–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mehta BP, Leslie-Mazwi TM, Chandra RV, et al. Reducing door-to-puncture times for intra-arterial stroke therapy: a pilot quality improvement project. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3:e000963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rai AT, Smith MS, Boo S, Tarabishy AR, Hobbs GR, Carpenter JS. The ‘pit-crew’ model for improving door-to-needle times in endovascular stroke therapy: a Six-Sigma project. J Neurointerv Surg. 2016;8:447–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schönenberger S, Uhlmann L, Hacke W, et al. Effect of conscious sedation vs general anesthesia on early neurological improvement among patients with ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316:1986–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Löwhagen Henden P, Rentzos A, Karlsson JE, et al. General anesthesia versus conscious sedation for endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke: the AnStroke Trial (anesthesia during stroke). Stroke. 2017;48:1601–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simonsen CZ, Yoo AJ, Sorensen LH, et al. Effect of general anesthesia and conscious sedation during endovascular therapy on infarct growth and clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75:470–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schönenberger S, Möhlenbruch M, Pfaff J, et al. Sedation vs. Intubation for Endovascular Stroke TreAtment (SIESTA)—a randomized monocentric trial. Int J Stroke. 2015;10:969–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Menon BK, Sajobi TT, Zhang Y, et al. Analysis of workflow and time to treatment on thrombectomy outcome in the Endovascular treatment for Small Core and Proximal Occlusion Ischemic Stroke (ESCAPE) randomized, controlled trial. Circulation. 2016;133:2279–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Menon BK, Almekhlafi MA, Pereira VM, et al. Optimal workflow and process-based performance measures for endovascular therapy in acute ischemic stroke: analysis of the Solitaire FR thrombectomy for acute revascularization study. Stroke. 2014;45:2024–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nii K, Hanada H, Hiraoka F, Eto A, Mitsutake T, Tsutsumi M. Usefulness of consciousness sedation with dexmedetomidine and pentazocine during endovascular treatment for acute stroke. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2018;58:79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whalin MK, Lopian S, Wyatt K, et al. Dexmedetomidine: a safe alternative to general anesthesia for endovascular stroke treatment. J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6:270–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jalili M, Bahreini M, Doosti-Irani A, Masoomi R, Arbab M, Mirfazaelian H. Ketamine-propofol combination (ketofol) vs propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:558–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Debailleul AM, Fichten A, Krivosic-Horber R. Target-controlled infusion with propofol for neuro-anesthesia. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2004;23:375–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Devlin JW, Mallow-Corbett S, Riker RR. Adverse drug events associated with the use of analgesics, sedatives, and antipsychotics in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:S231–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yan JW, McLeod SL, Iansavitchene A. Ketamine-propofol versus propofol alone for procedural sedation in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2015;22:1003–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bell JD. In vogue: ketamine for neuroprotection in acute neurologic injury. Anesth Analg. 2017;124:1237–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Green SM, Roback MG, Kennedy RM, Krauss B. Clinical practice guideline for emergency department ketamine dissociative sedation: 2011 update. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;57:449–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvia Schönenberger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dorothea Weber
    • 2
  • Matthias N. Ungerer
    • 1
  • Johannes Pfaff
    • 3
  • Simon Schieber
    • 1
  • Lorenz Uhlmann
    • 2
  • Pia Heidenreich
    • 1
  • Martin Bendszus
    • 3
  • Meinhard Kieser
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Wick
    • 1
  • Markus A. Möhlenbruch
    • 3
  • Peter A. Ringleb
    • 1
  • Julian Bösel
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Medical Biometry and InformaticsUniversity of HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of NeuroradiologyHeidelberg University HospitalHeidelbergGermany
  4. 4.Department of NeurologyKassel General HospitalKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations