Abstract
Since the clinical recognition of endovascular therapy (EVT) for stroke treatment is recent (2015), some organizational issues, such as the “drip and ship (DS) versus mothership (MS)” access to EVT remain unanswered. There is growing pressure to guarantee immediate access to EVT with limited human resources and infrastructures. As results from prospective studies are missing, a review of the existing literature dealing with clinical retrospective studies was carried out. Most of the studies did not report a significant difference with respect to the adverse effects for patients treated by EVT according to the organizational paradigm of care. Several studies did not report a significant difference concerning the 3 months functional outcomes regarding the organizational paradigm. Only two studies built theoretical models of the best outcomes and observed a superiority of the DS only if the door to needle time was less than 30 min. Waiting for the results of ongoing randomized controlled trials, this review of articles presenting patients treated with either MS or DS provides an overview but does not emphasize a superiority of a given paradigm; however, it highlights the inequalities of access to EVT according to the organization of care in different areas.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, Dippel DW, Mitchell PJ, Demchuk AM 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.
Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). Rapport d’évaluation technologique: Thrombectomie des artères intracrâniennes par voie endovasculaire. 2016.
Direct Transfer to an Endovascular Center Compared to Transfer to the Closest Stroke Center in Acute Stroke Patients With Suspected Large Vessel Occlusion (RACECAT). Available from: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02795962, Last update March 6, 2017
Park MS, Lee JS, Park TH, Cho YJ, Hong KS, Park JM et al. Characteristics of the drip-and-ship paradigm for patients with acute ischemic stroke in South Korea. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;25:2678–87.
Park MS, Yoon W, Kim JT, Choi KH, Kang SH, Kim BC et al. Drip, ship, and on-demand endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke. PLoS One. 2016;11:e150668.
Hiyama N, Yoshimura S, Shirakawa M, Uchida K, Oki Y, Shindo S et al. Safety and effectiveness of drip, ship, and retrieve paradigm for acute ischemic stroke: a single center experience. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2016;56:731.
Gerschenfeld G, Muresan IP, Blanc R, Obadia M, Abrivard M, Piotin M, Alamowitch S. Two paradigms for endovascular thrombectomy after intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74:549–56.
Weber R, Reimann G, Weimar C, Winkler A, Berger K, Nordmeyer H et al. Neurovascular Net Ruhr. Outcome and periprocedural time management in referred versus directly admitted stroke patients treated with thrombectomy. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2016;9:79–84.
Mohamad NF, Hastrup S, Rasmussen M, Andersen MS, Johnsen SP, Andersen G et al. Bypassing primary stroke centre reduces delay and improves outcomes for patients with large vessel occlusion. Eur Stroke J. 2016;1:85–92.
Milne MS, Holodinsky JK, Hill MD, Nygren A, Qiu C, Goyal M et al. Drip’n ship versus mothership for endovascular treatment: modeling the best transportation options for optimal outcomes. Stroke. 2017;48:791–4.
Holodinsky JK, Williamson TS, Kamal N, Mayank D, Hill MD, Goyal M. Drip and ship versus direct to comprehensive stroke center. Stroke. 2017;48:233–8.
Cappelen-Smith C, Cordato D, Calic Z, Cheung A, Wenderoth J. Endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke: a real-world experience. Intern Med J. 2016;46:1038–43.
Menon BK, Sajobi TT, Zhang Y, Rempel JL, Shuaib A, Thornton J 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.
Sablot D, Gaillard N, Smadja P, Bonnec J‑M, Bonafe A. Thrombectomy accessibility after transfer from a primary stroke center: analysis of a three-year prospective registry. Int J Stroke. 2017;12:519–23.
Pérez de la Ossa N, Abilleira S, Dorado L, Urra X, Ribó M, Cardona P et al. Catalan Stroke Code and Reperfusion Consortium. Access to endovascular treatment in remote areas: analysis of the Reperfusion Treatment Registry of Catalonia. Stroke. 2016;47:1381–4.
Tsai JP, Mlynash M, Christensen S, Kemp S, Kim S, Mishra NK et al. CRISP Investigators. Time from imaging to endovascular reperfusion predicts outcome in acute stroke. Stroke. 2018;49:952–7.
Nogueira RG, Jadhav AP, Haussen DC, Bonafe A, Budzik RF, Bhuva P et al. Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:11–21.
Abilleira S, Ribera A, Cardona P, Rubiera M, López-Cancio E, Amaro S et al. Outcomes after direct thrombectomy or combined intravenous and endovascular treatment are not different. Stroke. 2017;48:375–8.
Nogueira RG, Silva GS, Lima FO, Yeh YC, Fleming C, Branco D et al. The FAST-ED app: a smartphone platform for the field triage of patients with stroke. Stroke. 2017;48:1278–84.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
L. Détraz, M. Ernst and R. Bourcier declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Marielle Ernst and Romain Bourcier have equally contributed to this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Détraz, L., Ernst, M. & Bourcier, R. Stroke Transfer and its Organizational Paradigm. Clin Neuroradiol 28, 473–480 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-018-0715-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00062-018-0715-z