Patients with acute stroke should see a specialist

A Call for a Stroke Referral Network Between Primary Care and Stroke-Ready Hospitals in the Philippines: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

The increasing stroke burden, inequity in the distribution of local neurologists, and the recent signing of the Universal Health Care Law in the Philippines provide compelling reasons for policy-makers to devise strategies to establish networks between primary care and stroke-ready hospitals. In this review, we explored the current literature and evidence that emphasized the roles of primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, care transition, and telemedicine/teleneurology in various stages of stroke management.

REVIEW SUMMARY

Clear delegation of stroke care responsibilities among PCPs and specialists is needed. Due to the limited number of specialists/neurologists, PCPs may contribute to addressing the insufficiency of community knowledge of acute stroke symptoms/risk factors, coordination with specialists and stroke-ready hospitals during acute stroke, and continuity of care during the poststroke stage. At present, the Philippines has only 49 stroke-ready hospitals; thus, an efficient and functional referral system for the care transition between the PCPs and specialists must be organized in our country. To provide remote access to expert stroke care for underserved areas and to increase thrombolysis utilization, the establishment of an effective telestroke system is indispensable. The empowerment of PCPs in teleneurology may assist in strengthening communication and networking with specialists with the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of Universal Health Care in the Philippines, the roles of PCP and specialists must be delineated. Increased access to stroke care through the establishment of networks among PCPs and stroke-ready hospitals (ie, via effective transition of care/teleneurology) must be prioritized especially in resource-constrained settings.

Risk Factors for Epilepsy After Thrombolysis for Ischemic Stroke: A Cohort Study

The effects of thrombolysis in seizure and epilepsy after acute ischemic stroke have been poorly explored. In this study, we examine risk factors and consequences of intravenous rt-PA for treatment of acute ischemic stroke. In a retrospective cohort study we evaluate risk factors for seizure and epilepsy after stroke thrombolysis, as well as the impact of seizures and epilepsy in outcome of stroke patients. In our cohort, mean age of patients was 67.2 years old (SD = 13.1) and 79 of them (51.6%) were male and. Initial NIHSS mean score were 10.95 (SD = 6.25). Three months NIHSS mean score was 2.09 (SD = 3.55). Eighty seven (56.9%) patients were mRS of 0–1 after thrombolysis. Hemorrhagic transformation was observed in 22 (14.4%) patients. Twenty-one (13.7%) patients had seizures and 15 (9.8%) patients developed epilepsy after thrombolysis. Seizures were independently associated with hemorrhagic transformation (OR = 3.26; 95% CI = 1.08–9.78; p = 0.035) and with mRS ≥ 2 at 3 months after stroke (OR = 3.51; 95% CI = 1.20–10.32; p = 0.022). Hemorrhagic transformation (OR = 3.55; 95% CI = 1.11–11.34; p = 0.033) and mRS ≥ 2 at 3 months (OR = 5.82; 95% CI = 1.45–23.42; p = 0.013) were variables independently associated with post-stroke epilepsy. In our study, independent risks factors for poor outcome in stroke thrombolysis were age (OR = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.01–1.06; p = 0.011), higher NIHSS (OR = 1.08; 95% CI = 1.03–1.14; p = 0.001), hemorrhagic transformation (OR = 2.33; 95% CI = 1.11–4.76; p = 0.024), seizures (OR = 3.07; 95% CI = 1.22–7.75; p = 0.018) and large cortical area (ASPECTS ≤ 7) (OR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.04–3.84; p = 0.036). Concluding, in this retrospective cohort study, the neurological impairment after thrombolysis (but not before) and hemorrhagic transformation remained independent risk factors for seizures or post-stroke epilepsy after thrombolysis. Moreover, we observed that seizures emerged as an independent risk factor for poor outcome after thrombolysis therapy in stroke patients (OR = 3.07; 95% CI = 1.22–7.75; p = 0.018).