Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine if any difference exists in safety and outcomes of thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke administered via telemedicine, based on the subspeciality of the treating neurologist. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study using data from our local stroke registry of thrombolytic therapy administered via telemedicine at our rural stroke network over 5 years. The cohort was divided in 2 groups based on the subspecialty of the treating neurologist: vascular neurology (VN) and neurocritical care (NCC). Demographics, clinical characteristics, stroke metrics, thrombolytic complications, and final diagnosis were reviewed. In-hospital mortality and mRS and 30 days were noted. RESULTS: Among 142 patients who received thrombolytic therapy via telemedicine, 44 (31%) were treated by VN specialists; 98 (69%) by NCC specialist. There was no difference in baseline characteristics and stroke metrics between the 2 groups. Compared to NCC, VN had a trend toward higher, but non-significant, sICH (6% vs 1%, P = 0.05). In a logistic regression analysis, correcting for NIHSS, SBP, door-to-needle time, and use of antiplatelet therapy, the type of neurology subspecialty was not independently associated with development of sICH (OR: 0.141, SE: 0.188, P = 0.141). The rate of in-hospital mortality was also similar between VN and NCC (7% vs 5%, P = 0.8). In a model that accounted for stroke severity, no association was established between the type of neurology subspecialty and mRS at 30 days (OR: 1.589, SE: 0.662, P = 0.266). CONCLUSIONS: Safety and outcome of thrombolytic therapy via telemedicine was not influenced by the subspecialty of treating neurologist. Our study supports the expansion of telemedicine for acute stroke patients in rural and underserved areas.