ABSTRACT
Introduction Mobile Stroke Units (MSUs) provide faster stroke treatment with improved outcomes but are expensive and their urban and rural deployment differs. Geospatial analysis may be useful for planning optimal MSU distribution.
Methods We geo-coded Texas state-designated level-I or II stroke centers that did not overlap catchment areas and mapped 30, 60, 120 and 180-minute drive time buffers around each center, superimposing them on the distribution of stroke patients in the state including estimates of rural, vulnerable and minority populations within each buffer. We assumed that a MSU deployed from these “MSU centers” could rendezvous with emergency medical services (EMS) units halfway between a rural stroke location and the destination stroke center. For each buffer, we compared the number of patients potentially served by the MSU to a “base case” estimate of EMS transport represented by a 30-minute drive time buffer surrounding all non-overlapping level-I, II, III, or IV stroke centers.
Results We identified 11 level-I and 3 level-II potential MSU stroke centers. A 180-minute buffer around each of these (MSU-EMS rendezvous 90 minutes from the stroke center) resulted in 807,310 stroke patients potentially receiving thrombolysis within 3 hours of stroke onset representing 99.8% adult stroke patients in the state; a net increase of 94,076 (13%) patients compared to “base case” and a 277% increase in patients from rural areas. A 120-minute buffer increased total and rural treatments by 9% and 229%. A 60-minute buffer resulted in no net increase in treated patients, though 672,624 more would receive faster care by MSUs.
Conclusion When distributed using geospatial analysis, MSUs can provide faster acute stroke treatment and potentially better outcomes to virtually the entire state of Texas with a particular increase in rural populations that are not currently reached by EMS. Our findings might be useful to health care planners in any state.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr Grotta receives consulting fees from Frazer Ltd, a manufacturer of Mobile Stroke Units
Funding Statement
Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute: PCORI R-1511-33024.
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:
This study used publicly available de-identified data and did not involve human subjects; therefore, IRB approval was not required.
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
The data used in this study were obtained from publicly available sources, including the Texas Department of State Health Services, the 2020 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, the CDC PLACES project, and the CDC Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Geospatial analyses were conducted using ArcGIS Pro. Any additional data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
