Abstract
Background The majority of Mobile Stoke Units (MSUs) operate in European and United States urban cities. Questions remain on the cost-effectiveness, setting (urban, suburban, or rural), infrastructure and support, and reimbursement of these units. We present our experiences of a single-center MSU in a suburban setting, with treatment times, challenges, and possible future directions of alternative methods of care.
Methods Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from Mobile Stroke Unit calls for service and Get With The Guidelines-Stroke data from two primary stroke centers from December 2017 through February 2020 comparing patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis and treatment times.
Results There were no differences in age, sex, medical history, or stroke severity between MSU transport when compared to standard transport. There were differences in patient racial and ethnic demographics between groups, with higher white race and Hispanic ethnicity. Door-to-needle time was 48.9 minutes for patients seen on the Rush MSU versus 67.2 minutes for patients seen via traditional EMS transport (p=0.04).
Conclusions The Rush MSU demonstrated significant reduction of acute ischemic stroke treatment time with intravenous thrombolysis, but did not demonstrate the patient volume necessary to justify continued operation. Suburban and rural regions do benefit from pre-hospital stroke evaluation, however the ideal method for a cost-effective strategy is still unknown.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Rush Mobile Stroke Unit was funded by a grant from The Grainger Foundation in Lake Forest, Illinois.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Rush University Medical Center IRB approved the study
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data available was reported in the manuscript.
