Impact of Viz LVO on Time-to-Treatment and Clinical Outcomes in Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke Patients Presenting to Primary Stroke Centers

Introduction Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the importance of time-to-treatment on clinical outcomes in large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke. Delays in interventional radiology (INR) consultation are associated with a significant delay in overall time to endovascular treatment (EVT). Delays in EVT are particularly prevalent in Primary Stroke Centers (PSC), hospitals without thrombectomy capability onsite, where the patient requires transfer to a Thrombectomy Capable or Comprehensive Stroke Center for EVT. A novel computer aided triage system, Viz LVO, assists in early notification of the PSC stroke team and affiliated INR team. This platform includes an image viewer, communication system, and an artificial intelligence algorithm that automatically identifies suspected LVO strokes on CTA imaging and rapidly triggers alerts.

Hypothesis Viz LVO will decrease time-to-treatment and improve clinical outcomes.

Methods A prospectively maintained database was assessed for all patients who presented to a PSC currently utilizing Viz LVO in the Mount Sinai Health System in New York and underwent EVT following transfer for LVO stroke between October 1, 2018 and March 15, 2020. There were 42 patients who fit the inclusion criteria and divided into pre- and post-Viz ContaCT implementation by comparing the periods of October 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, “Pre-Viz”, and October 1, 2019, to March 15, 2020, “Post-Viz.” Time intervals and clinical outcomes were collected and compared.

Results The Pre- and Post-Viz cohorts were similar in terms of gender, age, proportion receiving IV-tPA, and proportion with revascularization of TICI > 2B. The presenting NIHSS and pre-stroke mRS scores were not statistically different.

The median initial door-to-INR notification was significantly faster in the post-Viz cohort (21.5 minutes vs 36 minutes; p=0.02). The median initial door-to-puncture time interval was 20 minutes shorter in the Post-Viz cohort, but this was not statistically significant (p=0.20).

The 5-day NIHSS and discharge mRS were both significantly lower in the Post-Viz cohort (p=0.02 and p=0.03, respectively). The median 90-day mRS scores were also significantly lower post-Viz implementation, although a similar proportion received a good outcome (mRS score ≤ 2) (p=0.02 and p=0.42, respectively).

Conclusions EVT is a time-sensitive intervention that is only available at select stroke centers. Significant delays in time-to-treatment are present when patients require transfer from PSCs to a EVT capable stroke center. In a large health care system, we have shown that Viz LVO implementation is associated with improved time to INR notification and clinical outcomes. Viz LVO has the potential for wide-spread improvement in clinical outcomes with implementation across large hub and stroke systems across the country.