Drip and ship versus direct to endovascular thrombectomy: The impact of treatment times on transport decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In ischaemic stroke care, fast reperfusion is essential for disability free survival. It is unknown if bypassing thrombolysis centres in favour of endovascular thrombectomy (mothership) outweighs transport to the nearest thrombolysis centre for alteplase and then transfer for endovascular thrombectomy (drip-and-ship). We use conditional probability modelling to determine the impact of treatment times on transport decision-making for acute ischaemic stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Probability of good outcome was modelled using a previously published framework, data from the Irish National Stroke Register, and an endovascular thrombectomy registry at a tertiary referral centre in Ireland. Ireland was divided into 139 regions, transport times between each region and hospital were estimated using Google's Distance Matrix Application Program Interface. Results were mapped using ArcGIS 10.3. RESULTS: Using current treatment times, drip-and-ship rarely predicts best outcomes. However, if door to needle times are reduced to 30 min, drip-and-ship becomes more favourable; even more so if turnaround time (time from thrombolysis to departure for the endovascular thrombectomy centre) is also reduced. Reducing door to groin puncture times predicts better outcomes with the mothership model. DISCUSSION: This is the first case study modelling pre-hospital transport for ischaemic stroke utilising real treatment times in a defined geographic area. A moderate improvement in treatment times results in significant predicted changes to the optimisation of a national acute stroke patient transport strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling patient transport for system-level planning is sensitive to treatment times at both thrombolysis and thrombectomy centres and has important implications for the future planning of thrombectomy services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".