Stroke alarm clock that requires feedback expedites care

  • Stroke

  • curated by Susan London
  • Clinical Essentials
Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Takeaway

  • Use of a stroke alarm clock requiring active feedback hastens diagnostic work-up and start of thrombolysis, although functional outcome is not significantly improved.

Why this matters

Key results

  • Compared with usual care, the stroke clock shortened times from admission (door) to:
    • Treatment decision: 16.73 vs 26.00 minutes (P<.001>
    • End of neurologic examination: 7.28 vs 10.00 minutes (P<.001>
    • End of CT imaging: 11.17 vs 14.00 minutes (P=.002).
    • End of CT angiography: 14.00 vs 17.17 minutes (P=.001).
    • End of point-of-care laboratory testing: 12.14 vs 20.00 minutes (P<.001>
    • Intravenous thrombolysis needle placement: 18.83 vs 47.00 minutes (P=.016).
  • Groups similar on:
    • Door-to-groin puncture time: 68.10 vs 78.75 minutes (P=.262).
    • Day 90 favorable functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-2): 58.8% vs 48.2% (P=.333).

Study design

  • German single-center randomized controlled trial: 107 patients, symptoms ≤8 hours duration or wake-up stroke.
  • Randomization: usual care vs stroke clock (large-display clock in CT room, alarms set for targets; physician required to press buzzer button).
  • Main outcome: time to treatment decision (end of diagnostic work-up required for decision about recanalization).
  • Funding: Ministry of Health of the Saarland.

Limitations

  • Lack of blinding.
  • Intervention not tested 24/7.
  • Uncertain generalizability.