Cargando…

A Systematic Review of Mobile Stroke Unit Among Acute Stroke Patients: Time Metrics, Adverse Events, Functional Result and Cost-Effectiveness

BACKGROUND: Mobile stroke unit (MSU) is deployed to shorten the duration of ischemic stroke recognition to thrombolysis treatment, thus reducing disability, mortality after an acute stroke attack, and related economic burden. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the clinical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Jieyun, Lin, Xiaoying, Cai, Yali, Huang, Risheng, Yang, Songyu, Zhang, Gaofeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35356455
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.803162
_version_ 1784677251639410688
author Chen, Jieyun
Lin, Xiaoying
Cai, Yali
Huang, Risheng
Yang, Songyu
Zhang, Gaofeng
author_facet Chen, Jieyun
Lin, Xiaoying
Cai, Yali
Huang, Risheng
Yang, Songyu
Zhang, Gaofeng
author_sort Chen, Jieyun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Mobile stroke unit (MSU) is deployed to shorten the duration of ischemic stroke recognition to thrombolysis treatment, thus reducing disability, mortality after an acute stroke attack, and related economic burden. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the clinical trial and economic literature focusing on various outcomes of MSU compared with conventional emergency medical services (EMS). METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in four databases (PubMed, OVID Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials) from 1990 to 2021. In these trials, patients with acute stroke were assigned to receive either MSU or EMS, with clinical and economic outcomes. First, we extracted interested data in the pooled population and conducted a subgroup analysis to examine related heterogeneity. We then implemented a descriptive analysis of economic outcomes. All analyses were performed with R 4.0.1 software. RESULTS: A total of 22,766 patients from 16 publications were included. In total 7,682 (n = 33.8%) were treated in the MSU and 15,084 (n = 66.2%) in the conventional EMS. Economic analysis were available in four studies, of which two were based on trial data and the others on model simulations. The pooled analysis of time metrics indicated a mean reduction of 32.64 min (95% confidence interval: 23.38–41.89, p < 0.01) and 28.26 minutes (95% CI: 16.11–40.41, p < 0.01) in the time-to-therapy and time-to-CT completion, respectively in the MSU. However, there was no significant difference on stroke-related neurological events (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.70–1.27, p = 0.69) and in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.83–1.50, p = 0.48) between the MSU and EMS. The proportion of patients with modified Ranking scale (mRS) of 0–2 at 90 days from onset was higher in the MSU than EMS (p < 0.05). MSU displayed favorable benefit-cost ratios (2.16–6.85) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($31,911 /QALY and $38,731 per DALY) comparing to EMS in multiple economic publications. Total cost data based on 2014 USD showed that the MSU has the highest cost in Australia ($1,410,708) and the lowest cost in the USA ($783,463). CONCLUSION: A comprehensive analysis of current research suggests that MUS, compared with conventional EMS, has a better performance in terms of time metrics, safety, long-term medical benefits, and cost-effectiveness.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8959845
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89598452022-03-29 A Systematic Review of Mobile Stroke Unit Among Acute Stroke Patients: Time Metrics, Adverse Events, Functional Result and Cost-Effectiveness Chen, Jieyun Lin, Xiaoying Cai, Yali Huang, Risheng Yang, Songyu Zhang, Gaofeng Front Neurol Neurology BACKGROUND: Mobile stroke unit (MSU) is deployed to shorten the duration of ischemic stroke recognition to thrombolysis treatment, thus reducing disability, mortality after an acute stroke attack, and related economic burden. Therefore, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the clinical trial and economic literature focusing on various outcomes of MSU compared with conventional emergency medical services (EMS). METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in four databases (PubMed, OVID Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials) from 1990 to 2021. In these trials, patients with acute stroke were assigned to receive either MSU or EMS, with clinical and economic outcomes. First, we extracted interested data in the pooled population and conducted a subgroup analysis to examine related heterogeneity. We then implemented a descriptive analysis of economic outcomes. All analyses were performed with R 4.0.1 software. RESULTS: A total of 22,766 patients from 16 publications were included. In total 7,682 (n = 33.8%) were treated in the MSU and 15,084 (n = 66.2%) in the conventional EMS. Economic analysis were available in four studies, of which two were based on trial data and the others on model simulations. The pooled analysis of time metrics indicated a mean reduction of 32.64 min (95% confidence interval: 23.38–41.89, p < 0.01) and 28.26 minutes (95% CI: 16.11–40.41, p < 0.01) in the time-to-therapy and time-to-CT completion, respectively in the MSU. However, there was no significant difference on stroke-related neurological events (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.70–1.27, p = 0.69) and in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.83–1.50, p = 0.48) between the MSU and EMS. The proportion of patients with modified Ranking scale (mRS) of 0–2 at 90 days from onset was higher in the MSU than EMS (p < 0.05). MSU displayed favorable benefit-cost ratios (2.16–6.85) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($31,911 /QALY and $38,731 per DALY) comparing to EMS in multiple economic publications. Total cost data based on 2014 USD showed that the MSU has the highest cost in Australia ($1,410,708) and the lowest cost in the USA ($783,463). CONCLUSION: A comprehensive analysis of current research suggests that MUS, compared with conventional EMS, has a better performance in terms of time metrics, safety, long-term medical benefits, and cost-effectiveness. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8959845/ /pubmed/35356455 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.803162 Text en Copyright © 2022 Chen, Lin, Cai, Huang, Yang and Zhang. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neurology
Chen, Jieyun
Lin, Xiaoying
Cai, Yali
Huang, Risheng
Yang, Songyu
Zhang, Gaofeng
A Systematic Review of Mobile Stroke Unit Among Acute Stroke Patients: Time Metrics, Adverse Events, Functional Result and Cost-Effectiveness
title A Systematic Review of Mobile Stroke Unit Among Acute Stroke Patients: Time Metrics, Adverse Events, Functional Result and Cost-Effectiveness
title_full A Systematic Review of Mobile Stroke Unit Among Acute Stroke Patients: Time Metrics, Adverse Events, Functional Result and Cost-Effectiveness
title_fullStr A Systematic Review of Mobile Stroke Unit Among Acute Stroke Patients: Time Metrics, Adverse Events, Functional Result and Cost-Effectiveness
title_full_unstemmed A Systematic Review of Mobile Stroke Unit Among Acute Stroke Patients: Time Metrics, Adverse Events, Functional Result and Cost-Effectiveness
title_short A Systematic Review of Mobile Stroke Unit Among Acute Stroke Patients: Time Metrics, Adverse Events, Functional Result and Cost-Effectiveness
title_sort systematic review of mobile stroke unit among acute stroke patients: time metrics, adverse events, functional result and cost-effectiveness
topic Neurology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35356455
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2022.803162
work_keys_str_mv AT chenjieyun asystematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT linxiaoying asystematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT caiyali asystematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT huangrisheng asystematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT yangsongyu asystematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT zhanggaofeng asystematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT chenjieyun systematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT linxiaoying systematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT caiyali systematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT huangrisheng systematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT yangsongyu systematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness
AT zhanggaofeng systematicreviewofmobilestrokeunitamongacutestrokepatientstimemetricsadverseeventsfunctionalresultandcosteffectiveness