"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Margaret Mead

Original article
peer-reviewed

Comparison of Rates and Outcomes of Readmission to Index vs Non-index Hospitals After Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Stroke Patients



Abstract

National and regional systems of stroke care are designed to provide patients with widespread access to hospitals with thrombolytic capabilities. However, such triaging systems may contribute to fragmentation of care. This study aims to compare rates of readmission and outcomes between index and non-index hospitals for stroke patients following intravenous thrombolytic therapy (IVT). This study utilized a nationally representative sample of stroke patients with IVT from the Nationwide Readmissions Database from 2010 to 2014. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed for patient and hospital level factors that influenced 90-day readmissions and regression models were used to identify differences in mortality, complications, and repeat readmissions between patients readmitted to index (facility where IVT was administered) and non-index hospitals. In the study, 49415 stroke patients were treated with IVT, of whom 21.7% were readmitted within 90 days. Among readmissions, 79.4% of patients were readmitted to index hospitals and 20.6% to non-index hospitals. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, index hospital readmission was independently associated with lower frequency of second readmissions (non-index OR 1.09, 95%CI 1.07-1.11, p<0.0001) but not with increased mortality or major complications (p=ns). Approximately one-fifth of stroke patients treated with thrombolysis were readmitted within 90 days, one-fifth of whom were readmitted to non-index hospitals. Although readmission to index hospital was associated with lower frequency of subsequent readmissions, readmission to non-index hospital was not associated with increased mortality or major complications. This difference may be due to standardized algorithms, mature systems of care, and demanding metrics required of stroke centers.

Introduction

An estimated 795,000 people suffer from stroke in the United States each year [1]. Eighty-seven percent of these strokes are ischemic. Management of ischemic stroke is time-sensitive as clinical symptoms often progress rapidly to permanent neurological deficits. Pre-hospital neurological deterioration occurs in 9% of ischemic stroke patients [2]. Roughly 7% of patients deteriorate during the early Emergency Department (ED) phase [2], and approximately 20% experience neurological worsening within the first 24 to 48 hours at the hospital [3]. Vessel recanalization and restoration of perfusion to viable brain tissue is the most effective means of limiting ischemic stroke progression. Originally approved in 1996 for use in the United States after the positive National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) trial [4], thrombolysis with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) is considered to be the standard of care for eligible patients suffering from acute ischemic stroke [4]. The recommended window for IV-tPA treatment is within 3, or in some cases 4.5, hours after the onset of stoke [5, 6]. It is, therefore, critical for ischemic stroke patients to be brought to a capable stroke center in rapid fashion following onset of symptoms.

National and regional systems of stroke care aim to provide patients with widespread access to hospitals with thrombolytic capabilities, as early intervention with IV-tPA is critical for improved outcomes. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) protocols dictate routing of suspected stroke patients to certified stroke hospitals such as Primary Stroke Centers (PSCs) to expedite in-hospital time-to-treatment processes. However, ischemic stroke patients treated with IV-tPA have risks of disease- and treatment- related complications, as well as comorbidities, that typically require specialized in-hospital and follow-up management [1, 7, 8]. Stroke systems and routing parameters often result in patients initially being treated in hospitals that are further from their homes. This may negatively impact continuity of care and management of complications in cases of readmission (potentially to a different hospital) [9].

In a number of medical conditions, readmission to a different hospital is associated with less favorable outcomes due to care fragmentation [10, 11]. Our study leverages the Nationwide Readmission Database to determine rates of readmission to index (site of first admission) and non-index (site other than first admission) hospitals for stroke patients following thrombolysis therapy and to compare readmission outcomes between the index and non-index readmission types.

Materials & Methods

Data Source

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) is a nationally representative database with information about patients with readmissions following initial hospitalization. The NRD database collects data from 28 states, representing about 58% of all hospitalizations and readmissions in the US. The NRD provides a unique identifier link for each patient, within each calendar year, within each state, that is used to determine patients’ hospitalizations within that year. The index hospital was defined as the hospital at which the patient was initially admitted and treated with IVT, while a non-index hospital was defined as any other hospital. The NRD is a de-identified, publicly available database. No institutional review board or ethics approval was required for this study. This study is a retrospective analysis of the NRD database from 2010-2014.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

International Classification of Disease, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modifications (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes were used to identify patients meeting inclusion criteria. Adult patients (≥18 years old) with a diagnosis of ischemic stroke (433.01, 433.11, 433.21, 433.31, 433.81, 433.91, 434.01, 434.11, 434.91, 436) managed with IVT (99.10, V45.88) were selected from the NRD and included in this study. Only non-elective admissions were considered in this study. As the NRD records patient data for a single calendar year, only patients with sufficient follow-up time of 90 days (discharged between January and September) were included in this study. Only the first readmission within 90-days was included in this analysis. However, rates of repeat readmission were measured.

Patients with a diagnosis of head trauma (80x.xx, 85x.xx), subarachnoid hemorrhage (430), extra-axial hematoma (432.0, 432.1, 432.9), arteriovenous malformation (747.81), cerebral arteritis (437.4), Moyamoya disease (437.5), venous sinus thrombosis (437.6), brain tumor (191.x, 192.0, 192.1, 194.3, 198.3, 198.4, 199.0, 200.5, 225.x, 227.3, 237.0, 237.5, 237.6), or intracranial abscess (324.0) were excluded. Additionally, patients who underwent microsurgical clipping of a cerebral aneurysm (39.51, 39.52), repair of an arteriovenous malformation (39.53), cranioplasty (02.03-02.07), stereotactic radiosurgery (92.3x), carotid artery stent placement (00.63), or carotid endarterectomy (38.12) were excluded. Patients who died during the index hospitalization, or who were missing “died” or “length of stay” information were excluded. Patients identified according to the above inclusion and exclusion criteria were included as study participants.

Association Variables

Patient and hospital level characteristics were included in the analysis. Patient demographics included age (categorized as 18-44, 45-59, 60-74, >75), gender (male or female), insurance type (Medicare, Medicaid, private, self-pay, no charge, or other), median household income (by quartile), residency status (resident/nonresident of state where procedure was performed), discharge quarter (January-March, April-June, July-September), and discharge disposition (routine vs other). Other patient characteristics included comorbidity score, major complications, neurological complications, and second readmission. Comorbidity score was determined by the Elixhauser variables and re-categorized into 3 groups (0-1, 2, or ≥3). Major complications included pneumonia (481-482, 482.1-482.3, 482.30-482.32, 482.39-482.41, 482.49, 482.80-482.84, 482.89, 482.90, 483.0, 483.1, 483.8, 485-487.0, 997.3, 507.0), pulmonary embolism (415.1-415.9), renal failure (584, 584.5-584.9), cerebrovascular accident (433.01, 433.11, 433.21, 433.31, 433.81, 433.91), myocardial infarction (410.00-410.90, 410.01, 410.11-410.91), cardiac arrest (427.5), sepsis (995.91), and septic shock (995.92). Neurological complications included intracerebral hemorrhage (431, 998.11-998.12), seizures (345.xx), and neurological complications after procedure (997.01-997.09). All patient-refined diagnosis related groups (APR-DRG) severity of illness and risk of mortality scores (minor, moderate, major, extreme) provided by NRD were also included. Hospital characteristics included bed size (small, medium, or large), academic vs non-academic status, ownership status (government, nonfederal; private, nonprofit; private, invest-own), and urban vs rural location.

Outcome Variables

Rates of readmission to index or non-index hospitals within 90 days of initial hospitalization were quantified. Reasons for readmission, based on ICD-9-CM codes, were identified. Patient and hospital factors associated with readmission were evaluated. Outcomes following readmission to index or non-index hospitals, including mortality, major complications, neurological complications, and second readmission were assessed. Factors associated with mortality, major complications, neurological complications, and second readmission were identified.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize patient and hospital factors associated with 90-day readmission to index or non-index hospitals. Multivariable logistic regression models were used for mortality, major complications, neurological complications, and frequency of second readmissions. Patient and hospital level demographic variables from the initial hospitalization (listed above) were included in the models. A sensitivity analysis was performed to adjust for readmission hospital characteristics. Data was reported using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA).

Results

Study Participants and Descriptive Data

A total of 49415 patients with ischemic stroke were treated with IV-tPA during the study period. Among them, 10718 (21.7%) patients were readmitted within 90 days, which constituted the primary population of this study. Of the 10718 readmitted patients, 8514 (79.4%) were readmitted to the index hospital and 2204 (20.6%) were readmitted to a non-index hospital. Age distribution of the study population was: 18-44 (4.8%), 45-59 (17.8%), 60-74 (32.5%), ≥75 (44.8%). Percentage of female patients was 49.9%. (Table 1).

  Total (n=10718) Index Hospital (n=8514) Non-index Hospital (n=2204) p-value
Age, n (%)  
   18-44 517 (4.8) 387 (4.6) 130 (5.9) 0.0007
   45-59 1910 (17.8) 1489 (17.5) 421 (19.1)
   60-74 3486 (32.5) 2747 (32.3) 739 (33.5)
   ≥75 4805 (44.8) 3891 (45.7) 914 (41.5)
Female, n (%) 5349 (49.9) 4263 (50.1) 1086 (49.3) 0.51
Primary Insurance, n (%)  
   Medicare 7357 (68.8) 5899 (69.3) 1476 (67.0)      0.0071
   Medicaid 977 (9.1) 733 (8.6) 244 (11.1)
   Private insurance 1711 (16.0) 1365 (16.0) 346 (15.7)
   Self-pay 358 (3.3) 278 (3.3) 80 (3.6)
   No charge 43 (0.4) 38 (0.5) DS* (0.2)
   Other 234 (2.2) 186 (2.2) 48 (2.2)  
   Missing 20 (0.2) 15 (0.2) DS* (0.2)  
Comorbidity Score, n (%)  
   0 209 (1.9) 162 (1.9) 47 (2.1) 0.22
   1 995 (9.3) 782 (9.2) 213 (9.7)
   2 1868 (17.4) 1515 (17.8) 353 (16.0)
   3 7646 (71.3) 6055 (71.1) 1591 (72.2)
Median Household Income*, n (%)  
   0-25 percentile 2961 (27.6) 2304 (27.1) 657 (29.8) 0.025
   26-50 percentile 2568 (24.0) 2027 (23.8) 541 (24.6)
   51-75 percentile 2585 (24.1) 2072 (24.3) 513 (23.3)
   76-100 percentile 2445 (22.8) 1979 (23.2) 466 (21.1)
   Missing 159 (1.5) 132 (1.6) 27 (1.2)
All Patient Refined DRG: Risk of Mortality, n (%)  
   Minor 2324 (21.7) 1827 (21.5) 497 (22.6) 0.0155
   Moderate 4085 (38.1) 3293 (38.7) 792 (35.9)
   Major 2485 (23.2) 1986 (23.3) 499 (22.6)
   Extreme 1824 (17.0) 1408 (16.5) 416 (18.9)
All Patient Refined DRG: Severity of Illness Subclass, n (%)  
   Minor 465 (4.3) 365 (4.3) 100 (4.5) 0.11
   Moderate 4114 (38.4) 3299 (38.8) 815 (37.0)
   Major 4245 (39.6) 3382 (39.7) 863 (39.2)
   Extreme 1894 (17.7) 1468 (17.2) 426 (19.3)
Control/Ownership of Hospital, n (%)  
   Government, non-federal 120 (22.9) 87 (22.5) 33 (24.2) 0.0123
   Private, non-profit 7648 (71.4) 6126 (72.0) 1522 (69.1)
   Private, invest-own 1509 (14.1) 1188 (14.0) 321 (14.6)
Teaching Status of Urban Hospitals, n (%)  
   Teaching 6608 (61.7) 5198 (61.1) 1410 (64.0) 0.0119
   Non-teaching 4110 (38.3) 3316 (39.0) 794 (36.0)
Hospital Bed Size, n (%)  
   Small 629 (5.9) 474 (5.6) 155 (7.0) 0.0331
   Medium 2327 (21.7) 1856 (21.8) 471 (21.4)
   Large 7762 (72.4) 6184 (72.6) 1578 (71.6)
Hospital Urban-Rural Designation, n (%)  
   Large metropolitan areas with at least 1 million residents, n (%) 6583 (61.4) 5134 (60.3) 1449 (65.7) <0.0001
   Other 4135 (38.6) 3380 (39.7) 755 (34.3)
Resident of state where procedure was performed, n (%)  
   Nonresident 334 (3.1) 276 (3.2) 58 (2.6) 0.14
   Resident 10384 (96.9) 8238 (96.8) 2146 (97.4)
Discharged to Another Facility, n (%)  
   Yes 7475 (69.7) 5900 (69.3) 1575 (71.5) 0.0417
   No 3237 (30.2) 2611 (30.7) 626 (28.4)
Major Complication, n (%)  
   Yes 3174 (29.6) 2514 (29.5) 660 (30.0) 0.70
   No 7544 (70.4) 6000 (70.5) 1544 (70.1)
Neurological Complication, n (%)  
   Yes 1300 (12.1) 993 (11.7) 307 (13.9) 0.0037
   No 9418 (87.9) 7521 (88.3) 1897 (86.1)
Repeat Readmission, n (%)  
   Yes 2572 (24.0) 1882 (22.1) 690 (31.3) <0.0001
   No 8146 (76.0) 6632 (77.9) 1514 (68.7)
Discharge Quarter, n (%)  
   Jan-March 3501 (32.7) 2773 (32.6) 728 (33.0) 0.79
   April-June 3562 (33.2) 2843 (33.4) 719 (32.6)
   July-Sep 3655 (34.1) 2898 (34.0) 757 (34.4)

The most common reasons for readmission were cerebral artery occlusion (8.73%), septicemia (5.83%), and carotid artery occlusion (5.22%) (Table 2).

ICD Diagnosis n (%)
43491 Cerebral Artery Occlusion w/ Infarct 935 (8.7)
0389 Septicemia 624 (5.8)
43310 Carotid Artery Occlusion w/out Infarct 559 (5.2)
4359 Transient Cerebral Ischemia 311 (2.9)
5990 Urinary Tract Infection 308 (2.9)
42731 Atrial Fibrillation 267 (2.5)
5070 Food/Vomit Pneumonitis 257 (2.4)
43411 Cerebral Embolism w/ Infarction 205 (1.9)
V5789 Rehabilitation Procedure 204 (1.9)
486 Pneumonia 195 (1.8)

Readmission to Index or Non-Index Hospitals

In the multivariable logistic regression model of index vs non-index readmission, older age (60-74 years old: OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.97, p=0.03; ≥75 years old: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53-0.83, p=0.0003) and higher median household income (51-75 percentile: OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98, p=0.02; 76-100 percentile: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.88, p=0.0003) were associated with readmission to index hospital. Non-routine discharge (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.33, p=0.002) and neurological complication (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.36, p=0.01) were associated with readmission to a non-index hospital. Among hospital level factors, hospital location in a rural area (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86, p<0.0001) was associated with readmission to index hospital, while small hospital bed size (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11-1.62, p=0.003) was associated with readmission to a non-index hospital.

Outcomes following Index vs Non-Index Hospital Readmission

Readmission to non-index hospital was associated with increased frequency of repeat readmissions (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06-1.11, p<0.0001). Readmission to a non-index hospital was not associated with mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.01, p=0.44), major complications (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02, p=0.84), or neurological complications (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.02, p=0.32) (Table 3).

Outcome Index Hospital Non-index Hospital OR (95%CI) p-value
Mortality Reference 1.00 0.99-1.01 0.44
Major Complication Reference 1.00 0.98-1.02 0.84
Neurological Complication Reference 1.01 0.99-1.02 0.32
Repeat Readmission Reference 1.09 1.07-1.11 <0.0001

Outcomes following Readmission in Overall Index and Non-Index Group

Patient and hospital factors associated with mortality, major complications, neurological complications, and repeat readmission were assessed. Patient factors associated with mortality included increased age, higher risk of mortality defined as an APR-DRG classification of major or extreme, neurological complication, and discharge to another facility (Table 4).

  OR 95% CI p-value
Hospital  
   Index hospital Ref    
   Non-index hospital 1.00 0.99-1.01 0.44
Age  
   18-44 Ref    
   45-59 1.01 1.00-1.02 0.02
   60-74 1.02 1.01-1.03 <0.0001
  ≥ 75 1.05 1.03-1.06 <0.0001
All Patient Refined DRG: Risk of Mortality  
   Minor Ref    
   Moderate 1.00 0.99-1.01 0.81
   Major 1.04 1.03-1.05 <0.0001
   Extreme 1.17 1.15-1.20 <0.0001
Discharged to Another Facility  
   Yes 1.02 1.01-1.03 <0.0001
   No Ref    
Neurological Complication  
   Yes 0.98 0.96-0.99 0.001
   No Ref    

Increased age, male gender, greater illness severity (APR-DRG of moderate, major, extreme), and presence of a major complication at initial hospitalization were associated with major complications. Presence of a neurological complication at initial hospitalization and shorter length of stay were associated with a lower rate of major complications (Table 5).

  OR 95% CI p-value
Hospital  
   Index hospital Ref    
   Non-index hospital 1.00 0.98-1.02 0.84
Age  
   18-44 Ref    
   45-59 1.01 0.98-1.05 0.40
   60-74 1.07 1.04-1.10 <0.0001
  ≥ 75 1.13 1.10-1.17 <0.0001
Gender      
   Male 1.04 1.03-1.06 <0.0001
   Female Ref    
All Patient Refined DRG: Disease Severity  
   Minor Ref    
   Moderate 1.07 1.05-1.09 <0.0001
   Major 1.30 1.27-1.33 <0.0001
   Extreme 1.70 1.65-1.76 <0.0001
Major Complication  
   Yes 1.08 1.06-1.10 <0.0001
   No Ref    
Neurological Complication  
Yes 0.96 0.94-0.98 0.001
No Ref    
Length of Stay      
   Per 1 day increase 1.00 1.00-1.00 0.0003

Illness severity (APR-DRG of moderate, major, extreme), neurological complication at initial hospitalization, and discharge to another facility were associated with higher rate of neurological complication at readmission (Table 6).

  OR 95% CI p-value
Hospital  
   Index hospital Ref    
   Non-index hospital 1.01 0.99-1.02 0.32
Age  
   18-44 Ref    
   45-59 1.00 0.97-1.03 0.96
   60-74 0.98 0.95-1.01 0.18
   ≥ 75 0.95 0.93-0.98 0.0002
All Patient Refined DRG: Disease Severity      
   Minor Ref    
   Moderate 1.04 1.02-1.05 <0.0001
   Major 1.06 1.04-1.07 <0.0001
   Extreme 1.08 1.06-1.11 <0.0001
Major Complication      
   Yes 0.98 0.97-0.99 0.002
   No Ref    
Neurological Complication  
   Yes 1.24 1.21-1.28 <0.0001
   No Ref    
Discharged to Another Facility      
   Yes 1.02 1.00-1.03 0.011
   No Ref    

Repeat readmission was associated with comorbidity score >3, APR-DRG disease severity score of major, and longer length of stay. Older age, private insurance, household income in the 76-100 percentile, being a non-resident of the state where the procedure was performed, and rural hospital location were associated with lower frequency of repeat readmission (Table 7).

  OR 95% CI p-value
Hospital  
   Index hospital Ref    
   Non-index hospital 1.09 1.07-1.11 <0.0001
Age  
   18-44 Ref    
   45-59 0.99 0.95-1.03 0.60
   60-74 0.96 0.91-1.00 0.04
   ≥ 75 0.93 0.89-0.98 0.002
Primary Insurance      
   Medicaid Ref    
   Medicare 1.00 0.97-1.04 1.00
   Private insurance 0.95 0.92-0.99 0.005
   Self-pay 0.97 0.92-1.02 0.21
   No charge 0.99 0.87-1.13 0.89
   Other 0.94 0.89-1.00 0.06
Comorbidity Score      
   0 Ref    
   1 1.01 0.95-1.06 0.81
   2 1.04 0.99-1.09 0.16
   ≥ 3 1.09 1.04-1.15 0.0009
Median Household Income      
   0-25 percentile Ref    
   26-50 percentile 0.98 0.96-1.00 0.10
   51-75 percentile 0.98 0.96-1.00 0.11
   76-100 percentile 0.96 0.94-0.98 0.001
All Patient Refined DRG: Disease Severity      
   Minor Ref    
   Moderate 1.02 0.99-1.05 0.13
   Major 1.04 1.01-1.08 0.007
   Extreme 1.02 0.99-1.06 0.25
Hospital urban-rural designation      
   Large metropolitan area with at least 1 million residents Ref    
   Other 0.97 0.96-0.99 0.002
Resident of state where procedure was performed  
     Nonresident 0.93 0.89-0.97 0.0008
     Resident Ref    
Length of Stay      
   Per 1 day increase 1.00 1.00-1.00 0.005

Sensitivity analysis adjusting for characteristics of readmission hospitals was performed, and outcome results were the same.

Discussion

Ninety-day hospital readmission rates are important patient safety indicators and potential drivers of quality improvement initiatives. Understanding of readmission incidences, demographics, and outcomes represents an opportunity to identify patients at risk for complications and opportunities for improved systems of care. In our study, one-fifth (21.7%) of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients treated with IV-tPA were readmitted within 90 days of initial hospitalization, of which 20.6% were readmissions to non-index hospitals. Prior ischemic stroke studies have reported 7-12% 30-day readmission rates [12-17]. A large ischemic stroke hospital registry documented readmission rates of 10% at 30 days, 17% at 90 days, 24% at 180 days, and 36% at 360 days [18]. IV-tPA treatment is clearly beneficial to properly selected acute stroke patients. However, its administration is associated with risk of post-treatment complications such as intracranial hemorrhage, angioedema, re-occlusion, secondary embolization, and neurotoxicity [19-22]. Recurrent strokes and seizures may also occur following TPA administration as a function of the initial stroke etiology or a complication related to the ischemic tissue bed [23, 24]. The most common cause for readmission within 30 days not related to IV-tPA is acute cerebrovascular disease, accounting for nearly 20% of readmitted patients [12, 17]. Previous nationwide studies in stroke suggest that infection is the second leading cause of 30-day readmission (10-15% of patients) [12, 14]. Our results demonstrate a similar pattern, with cerebral artery occlusion (8.73%), septicemia (5.83%), and carotid artery occlusion (5.22%) as the most common causes for readmission within 90 days. This suggests that while cerebrovascular disease may account for a large proportion of early readmissions, other underlying disease processes or complications may be important in disease progression.

Fragmentation of care and readmission to a non-index hospital has been associated with higher rates of morbidity and mortality in other disease processes [11, 25]. While our results indicate that readmission to a non-index hospital after IVT for AIS was associated with more frequent secondary readmissions, it did not result in worse outcomes. Overall, patients readmitted to index vs. non-index hospitals did not differ with regards to mortality, major complications, or neurological complications. This may be due to mature systems of stroke care and standardization of IV-tPA administration. Patients suspected of having a stroke are typically directed to a hospital that is capable of administering IV-tPA. These hospitals include acute stroke ready hospitals (ASRH) and primary stroke centers (PSC) that are uniquely equipped to diagnose and treat patients with an ischemic stroke. ASRH are responsible for stabilizing the patient, providing initial therapy, and arranging efficient transport to a higher level of care. PSCs are capable of managing the majority of acute stroke patients and have designated care teams, stroke units, protocols, and rapid imaging and laboratory services [26, 27]. The methods and procedures for IV-tPA infusion and patient monitoring/ management are standardized and very well regulated according to guidelines. While there is likely variation to other procedures and ancillary services that an IV-tPA- treated stroke patient may have received, there is little ambiguity as to the thrombolysis treatment and related protocols at the time of initial stroke hospitalization. This makes it easier for medical teams to administer care and necessary treatments upon readmission. There may be less need for detailed history of the initial IV-tPA treatment, protocols, blood pressure parameters, and imaging paradigms. This is not true for many other disease processes where surgeries, chemotherapy regimens, or treatment protocols could vary greatly across disease types/ progression and different hospital systems. Standardization of acute stroke care across healthcare providers results in more comprehensive and coherent care of patients with ischemic stroke. The present study suggests that stroke systems of care are effective in the follow-up period, regardless of readmission destination.

This study has limitations. This study relies on retrospective data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Data is therefore subject to coding errors and information bias. The NRD includes only readmissions occurring in the same state as initial treatment and out-of-state readmissions are unable to be included in the analysis. There are a limited number of variables available in the NRD. Notably, race and ethnicity are not included, so the effect of these factors cannot be determined. Despite these limitations inherent to the database, the large sample size and use of multivariable analysis allows us to assess outcomes of 90-day readmissions.

Conclusions

Readmission to non-index hospital following IV-tPA treatment for acute stroke was not associated with increased mortality or major complications, unlike what has been seen in prior studies of other diseases processes. This difference may be due to standardized algorithms, mature systems of care, and demanding metrics required of acute stroke centers.


References

  1. Adams HP, del Zoppo G, Alberts MJ, et al.: Guidelines for the early management of adults with ischemic stroke: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council, Clinical Cardiology Council, Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention Council, and the Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease and Quality of Care Outcomes in Research Interdisciplinary Working Groups: The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline as an educational tool for neurologists. Circulation. 2007, 38:165-1711. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.181486
  2. Shkirkova K, Saver JL, Starkman S, et al.: Frequency, predictors, and outcomes of prehospital and early postarrival neurological deterioration in acute stroke: exploratory analysis of the FAST-MAG Randomized clinical trial. JAMA neurology. 2018, 75:1364-74. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1893
  3. Siegler JE, Albright KC, George AJ, et al.: Time to neurological deterioration in ischemic stroke. Med Student Res J. 2017 Winter, 4:18-24. 10.15404/msrj/03.2016.0005
  4. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group: Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 1995, 333:1581-7. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199512143332401
  5. Hacke W, Kaste M, Bluhmki E, et al.: Thrombolysis with alteplase 3 to 4.5 hours after acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2008, 359:1317-29. 10.1056/NEJMoa0804656
  6. Lees KR, Bluhmki E, von Kummer R, et al.: Time to treatment with intravenous alteplase and outcome in stroke: an updated pooled analysis of ECASS, ATLANTIS, NINDS, and EPITHET trials. Lancet. 2010, 375:1695-703. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60491-6
  7. Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP, et al.: Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013, 44:870-947. 10.1161/STR.0b013e318284056a
  8. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, et al.: 2018 Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2018, 49:e46-110. https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000158
  9. Burke JF, Skolarus LE, Adelman EE, Reeves MJ, Brown DL: Influence of hospital-level practices on readmission after ischemic stroke. Neurology. 2014, 82:2196-204. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000514
  10. Burke RE, Jones CD, Hosokawa P, Glorioso TJ, Coleman EA, Ginde AA: Influence of nonindex hospital readmission on length of stay and mortality. Med care. 2018, 56:85-90. 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000829
  11. Zafar SN, Shah AA, Channa H, Raoof M, Wilson L, Wasif N: Comparison of rates and outcomes of readmission to index vs nonindex hospitals after major cancer surgery. JAMA surgery. 2018, 153:719-27. 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0380
  12. Bambhroliya AB, Donnelly JP, Thomas EJ, et al.: Estimates and temporal trend for US nationwide 30-Day hospital readmission among patients with ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. JAMA network open. 2018, 1:e181190. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1190
  13. Bhattacharya P, Khanal D, Madhavan R, Chaturvedi S: Why do ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack patients get readmitted?. J Neurol Sci. 2011, 307:50-4. 10.1016/j.jns.2011.05.022
  14. Boehme AK, Kulick ER, Canning M, et al.: Infections increase the risk of 30-Day readmissions among stroke survivors. Stroke. 2018, 49:2999-3005. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022837
  15. Mittal MK, Rabinstein AA, Mandrekar J, Brown RD, Jr., Flemming KD: A population-based study for 30-d hospital readmissions after acute ischemic stroke. Int J Neurosci. 2017, 127:305-13. 10.1080/00207454.2016.1207642
  16. Suri MF, Qureshi AI: Readmission within 1 month of discharge among patients with acute ischemic stroke: results of the University HealthSystem Consortium Stroke Benchmarking study. J Vasc Interv Neurol. 2013, 6:47-51.
  17. Vahidy FS, Donnelly JP, McCullough LD, et al.: Nationwide estimates of 30-day readmission in patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2017, 48:1386-8. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016085
  18. Lin HJ, Chang WL, Tseng MC: Readmission after stroke in a hospital-based registry: risk, etiologies, and risk factors. Neurology. 2011, 76:438-43. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31820a0cd8
  19. Ali LK, Saver JL: The ischemic stroke patient who worsens: new assessment and management approaches. Rev Neurol Dis. 2007, 4:85-91.
  20. Balami JS, Sutherland BA, Buchan AM: Complications associated with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator therapy for acute ischaemic stroke. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets. 2013, 12:155-69. 10.2174/18715273112119990050
  21. Miller DJ, Simpson JR, Silver B: Safety of thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke: a review of complications, risk factors, and newer technologies. Neurohospitalist. 2011, 1:138-47. 10.1177/1941875211408731
  22. O'Carroll CB, Aguilar MI: Management of postthrombolysis hemorrhagic and orolingual angioedema complications. Neurohospitalist. 2015, 5:133-41. 10.1177/1941874415587680
  23. Kumar S, Selim MH, Caplan LR: Medical complications after stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2010, 9:105-18. 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70266-2
  24. Rao A, Barrow E, Vuik S, Darzi A, Aylin P: Systematic review of hospital readmissions in stroke patients. Stroke Res Treat. 2016, 2016:9325368. 10.1155/2016/9325368
  25. Zheng C, Habermann EB, Shara NM, et al.: Fragmentation of care after surgical discharge: non-Index readmission after major cancer surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2016, 222:780-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.01.052
  26. Alberts MJ, Latchaw RE, Jagoda A, et al.: Revised and updated recommendations for the establishment of primary stroke centers: a summary statement from the brain attack coalition. Stroke. 2011, 42:2651-65. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.615336
  27. Higashida R, Alberts MJ, Alexander DN, et al.: Interactions within stroke systems of care: a policy statement from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013, 44:2961-84. 10.1161/STR.0b013e3182a6d2b2
Original article
peer-reviewed

Comparison of Rates and Outcomes of Readmission to Index vs Non-index Hospitals After Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Stroke Patients


Author Information

Kristina Shkirkova Corresponding Author

Neurological Surgery, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA

Michelle Connor

Neurological Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

Drew M. Hodis

Zilkha Neurogenetic Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

Krista Lamorie-Foote

Neurological Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

Arati Patel

Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA

Qinghai Liu

Neurological Surgery, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, USA

Li Ding

Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

Arun Amar

Neurological Surgery, University of Southern California , Los Angeles, USA

Nerses Sanossian

Neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

Frank Attenello

Neurological Surgery, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA

William Mack

Neurological Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA


Ethics Statement and Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Human subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve human participants or tissue. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: NIH SC CTSI KL2 Clinical and Translational Research Scholar Award to FJA. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.


Original article
peer-reviewed

Comparison of Rates and Outcomes of Readmission to Index vs Non-index Hospitals After Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Stroke Patients


Figures etc.

SIQ
-
RATED BY 1 READER
CONTRIBUTE RATING

Scholary Impact Quotient™ (SIQ™) is our unique post-publication peer review rating process. Learn more here.