Efficacy and Safety of the Telestroke Drip-And-Stay Model: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives To compare outcomes between two models of acute ischemic stroke care. Namely 1) “drip-and-stay”, i.e. IV tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) administered at a spoke hospital in a telestroke network, with the patient remaining at the spoke, versus 2) “drip-and-ship”, i.e. tPA administered at a spoke hospital with subsequent patient transfer to a hub hospital, and 3) “hub”, i.e. tPA and subsequent treatment at a hub hospital. Materials and Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane from inception-October 2019 included randomized control trials and observational cohort studies comparing the drip-and-stay model to hub and drip-and-ship models. Outcomes of interest were functional independence (modified Rankin Scale ≤ 1), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), mortality, and length of stay. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using a fixed-effects meta-analysis and random-effects Bayesian meta-analysis. Non-inferiority was calculated using a fixed-margin method. Results Of 2806 unique records identified, 10 studies, totaling 4,164 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in functional outcomes (mRS0-1) (6 studies, RR=1.09, 95%CI 0.98–1.22, p=0.123), sICH (8 studies, RR=0.98, 95%CI 0.64–1.51, p=0.942), or 90-day mortality (5 studies, RR=0.98, 95%CI 0.73–1.32, p=0.911, respectively) between patients treated in a drip-and-stay model compared to patients treated in drip-and-ship or hub models. There was no significant heterogeneity in these outcomes. Drip-and-stay outcomes (mRS 0–1, sICH) were non-inferior when compared to the combined group. Conclusions Our findings indicate that drip-and-stay is non-inferior to current models of drip-and-ship or hub stroke care, and may be as safe and as effective as either.