ABSTRACT
Background and Purpose: Computed tomography angiography and perfusion studies have increasingly become a part of acute stroke evaluation. However, the volume, benefit, and scope of need for imaging is sometimes debated.
Purpose: This study evaluated the safety, efficiency, and efficacy of changes to the acute stroke evaluation protocol at our academic institution. Previously, contrast-enhanced imaging was "opt-in" and ordered upon suspicion of large vessel occlusion. This was subsequently transitioned to one where contrast-enhanced imaging was automatically ordered for all patients with "opt-out" of imaging if felt appropriate.
Methods: We performed a retrospective, case-control study that included patients evaluated for acute stroke management before and after the protocol change. Six hundred forty-seven patients met criteria for study involvement, of which 258 were in the preprotocol and 389 in the postprotocol group.
Results: There was no significant difference in rate of acute kidney injury and no delay in door-to-needle time. There was significant improvement in door-to-groin puncture times (49.9 minutes) for typical cases and increase in monthly rate of endovascular therapy (EVT).
Conclusion: Protocolization of contrast-enhanced imaging for acute stroke evaluation proved safe with respect to renal function, did not delay door-to-needle time, improved door-to-groin puncture time, and lead to higher rates of EVT.