To maintain procedural proficiency and certification according to the standards set by The Joint Commission—which accredits health care centers in the United States—thrombectomy-capable stroke centers (TSCs) must achieve a minimum annual procedural volume. The addition of thrombectomy-capable centers in a regional stroke care system has the potential to increase access but also to decrease patient presentations and procedural volume at nearby centers. This study sought to characterize the impact of certifying additional thrombectomy-capable centers on procedural volume by center in a large, urban Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system.

Data were collected from each designated thrombectomy-capable center in Los Angeles (LA) County from January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2022, during which a net total of five thrombectomy-capable centers were newly designated in the County. Per center volume for ischemic stroke presentations, intravenous (IV) thrombolysis administrations (IV tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]), and thrombectomy were tabulated by six-month interval. Median last-known-well-to-procedure times by LA County Public Health service planning area (SPA) were calculated. The effect of the number of designated centers on procedural volumes per center and median last-known-well-to-procedure times were analyzed via a linear mixed effects model with a log link function.

Procedural volume, ischemic stroke presentation volume, and last-known-well-to-procedure times had high variability over the time period studied. Nonetheless, the median values for each metric in this EMS system remained largely stable over the study period. There was no statistically significant association between the number of thrombectomy-capable centers and per center procedural volumes or times-to-procedure.

The designation of additional thrombectomy-capable centers in a regional stroke care system was not significantly associated with the volume of procedures by center or times-to-procedure, suggesting that additional centers may increase patient access to time-sensitive interventions without diluting patient presentations at existing centers.

It is difficult to obtain an accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement, especially in the prehospital environment. It is not known fully how various BP measurement techniques differ from one another.

The study hypothesized that there are differences in the accuracy of various non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurement strategies as compared to the gold standard of intra-arterial (IA) measurement.

The study enrolled adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with radial IA catheters placed to measure radial intra-arterial blood pressure (RIBP) as a part of their standard care at a large, urban, tertiary-care Level I trauma center. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) was taken by three different NIBP techniques (oscillometric, auscultated, and palpated) and compared to RIBP measurements. Data were analyzed using the paired t-test with dependent samples to detect differences between RIBP measurements and each NIBP method. The primary outcome was the difference in RIBP and NIBP measurement. There was also a predetermined subgroup analysis based on gender, body mass index (BMI), primary diagnosis requiring IA line placement, and current vasoactive medication use.

Forty-four patients were enrolled to detect a predetermined clinically significant difference of 5mmHg in SBP. The patient population was 63.6% male and 36.4% female with an average age of 58.4 years old. The most common primary diagnoses were septic shock (47.7%), stroke (13.6%), and increased intracranial pressure (ICP; 13.6%). Most patients were receiving some form of sedation (63.4%), while 50.0% were receiving vasopressor medication and 31.8% were receiving anti-hypertensive medication. When compared to RIBP values, only the palpated SBP values had a clinically significant difference (9.88mmHg less than RIBP; P < .001). When compared to RIBP, the oscillometric and auscultated SBP readings showed statistically but not clinically significant lower values. The palpated method also showed a clinically significant lower SBP reading than the oscillometric method (5.48mmHg; P < .001) and the auscultated method (5.06mmHg; P < .001). There was no significant difference between the oscillometric and auscultated methods (0.42mmHg; P = .73).

Overall, NIBPs significantly under-estimated RIBP measurements. Palpated BP measurements were consistently lower than RIBP, which was statistically and clinically significant. These results raise concern about the accuracy of palpated BP and its pervasive use in prehospital care. The data also suggested that auscultated and oscillometric BP may provide similar measurements.