Stroke, AcuteNCT00623350
Stroke DOC Arizona TIME - Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera
A study testing Telephone and Two way audio/video telemedicine consult in people with Stroke, Acute, run by Mayo Clinic at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Noninvasive prospective multi-center study of an interactive 2-way, wireless or site-independent, audiovisual telemedicine system designed for real-time remote examination of acute stroke symptoms and deficits as a basis for treatment consultation and recommendation. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke, Acute
- What is being tested?
- Telephone and Two way audio/video telemedicine consult
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Dec 2007to Jan 2009
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Subject Inclusion Criteria
For inclusion in the study, subjects must fulfill all of the following criteria:
- Written Informed Consent
- Eighteen years of age or older
- Symptoms consistent with acute stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic)
- Acute presentation of stroke symptoms, per bedside physician discretion (onset generally less than 12 hours and likely less than 3 hours)
Subject Exclusion Criteria
The following is the sole criterion for exclusion from the study:
- Unlikely to complete study through 90-day follow-up
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera Arizona - The Initial Mayo Clinic Experience
Noninvasive prospective multi-center study of an interactive 2-way, wireless or site-independent, audiovisual telemedicine system designed for real-time remote examination of acute stroke symptoms and deficits as a basis for treatment consultation and recommendation.
Study aims (1) to determine the impact of a site-independent, remote, telemedicine consultation system on decision making in the Emergency Department, regarding the decision to treat or not to treat with thrombolytics; (2) to assess the numbers of patients who receive thrombolytics and the time to treatment in patients evaluated by telemedicine versus telephone only; (3) to assess the appropriateness of thrombolytic treatment decisions in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations; and (4) to assess the completeness of the data collection in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations.
Read more
60 patients in Arizona with acute presentation of stroke symptoms, per bedside practitioner discretion (onset generally less than 12 hours and likely less than 3 hours)
Two arms: Video Camera/Telemedicine (Intervention n = 30) and No Video Camera/Telephone only (Control n = 30)
Read the detailed description
Design
Noninvasive prospective multi-center study of an interactive 2-way, wireless or site-independent, audiovisual telemedicine system designed for real-time remote examination of acute stroke symptoms and deficits as a basis for treatment consultation and recommendation.
Study aims (1) to determine the impact of a site-independent, remote, telemedicine consultation system on decision making in the Emergency Department, regarding the decision to treat or not to treat with thrombolytics; (2) to assess the numbers of patients who receive thrombolytics and the time to treatment in patients evaluated by telemedicine versus telephone only; (3) to assess the appropriateness of thrombolytic treatment decisions in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations; and (4) to assess the completeness of the data collection in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations.
60 patients in Arizona with acute presentation of stroke symptoms, per bedside practitioner discretion (onset generally less than 12 hours and likely less than 3 hours)
Two arms: Video Camera/Telemedicine (Intervention n = 30) and No Video Camera/Telephone only (Control n = 30)
Assessments
All cases will undergo the following assessments:
Patient-Level Visits
Baseline: Pre-stroke Modified Rankin Scale (demographics), pre-treatment Modified Rankin Scale, medications during prior 3 days, physical exam and vital signs, NIHSS, Modified NIHSS, EKG, screening labs, and head CT scan
Treatment: Treatment times, thrombolytic safety outcome, and recanalization treatment
Day 90: Modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, and mortality
End of Study: End of study/Termination
Meta-Level Reviews
Adjudication: Post case completion, review and evaluation of each remote consultation on whether the recommendation for or against thrombolytic therapy was appropriate, given the information presented at each of 3 levels of adjudication.
Central Read: Post case completion, review and evaluation of each Baseline head CT scan interpretation on whether there was a CT contraindication to thrombolytic therapy.
Trial Groups
There will be two trial groups in this study. The investigators hypothesized (based upon sample size calculations) that the correct treatment will be recommended at rates of 80% (telephone) and 90% (full telemedicine).
Target Population
60 AZ patients will be randomized to either telephone-only or video telemedicine consultation. Appropriateness of therapeutic decision-making, numbers treated, time to treatment, and completeness of data collection will be evaluated and compared for each group.
If the protocol or grant application is investigator-initiated, a 200-word (or less) abstract of the proposed protocol or grant application must be included (an abstract included in an NIH or other submission is acceptable). If the protocol is sponsor initiated, a summary written by the Mayo investigator must be included. Summary should include: 1) Hypothesis, 2) Basic study plan, 3) Statistical method/rationale, 4) Scientific basis or justification, 5) Inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 6) Monetary consideration. You may type or cut and paste from an existing document to address this question
Objectives
- to determine the impact of a site-independent, remote, telemedicine consultation system on decision making in the Emergency Department, regarding the decision to treat or not to treat with thrombolytics;
- to assess the numbers of patients who receive thrombolytics and the time to treatment in patients evaluated by telemedicine versus telephone only;
- to assess the appropriateness of thrombolytic treatment decisions in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations; and
- to assess the completeness of the data collection in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations.
- Conditions
- Stroke, Acute
- Being tested
- Telephone, Two way audio/video telemedicine consult
- Keywords
- Telemedicine, Stroke, Acute, Rural, Thrombolysis, Consultation
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
TelephoneOther
Acute Stroke consult by Telephone for the decision of tPA within 3 hours of symptom onset.
Two way audio/video telemedicine consultOther
Acute Stroke consult by two way audio video telemedicine for the decision of tPA within 3 hours of symptom onset.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Active comparator | Acute Stroke Telephone consult for the decision of tPA within 3 hours of symptoms onset. Receives: Other: Telephone |
| 2 | Active comparator | Acute Stroke consult via audio video telemedicine for the decision of tPA within 3 hours of symptom onset. Receives: Other: Two way audio/video telemedicine consult |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
to determine the impact of a site-independent, remote, telemedicine consultation system on decision making in the Emergency Department, regarding the decision to treat or not to treat with thrombolytics
Measured: 90 days
to assess the numbers of patients who receive thrombolytics and the time to treatment in patients evaluated by telemedicine versus telephone only
Measured: 90 days
to assess the appropriateness of thrombolytic treatment decisions in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations
Measured: 90 days
to assess the completeness of the data collection in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations.
Measured: 90 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Feb 2008 (estimated)
- Study startDec 2007
- Primary completionNov 2008
- Study completionJan 2009
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Stroke, AcuteStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Mayo ClinicThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo Clinic
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Arizona Department of Health Services, Yuma Regional Medical Center, Kingman Regional Medical Center, University of California, San Diego
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00623350
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 06-005731
- Status last verified
- May 2011
- First submitted
- 15 Feb 2008
- Last updated
- 12 May 2011
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Demaerschalk BM, Bobrow BJ, Raman R, Kiernan TE, Aguilar MI, Ingall TJ, Dodick DW, Ward MP, Richemont PC, Brazdys K, Koch TC, Miley ML, Hoffman Snyder CR, Corday DA, Meyer BC; STRokE DOC AZ TIME Investigators. Stroke team remote evaluation using a digital observation camera in Arizona: the initial mayo clinic experience trial. Stroke. 2010 Jun;41(6):1251-8. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.574509. Epub 2010 Apr 29.
PubMed 20431081Demaerschalk BM, Bobrow BJ, Raman R, Ernstrom K, Hoxworth JM, Patel AC, Kiernan TE, Aguilar MI, Ingall TJ, Dodick DW, Meyer BC; Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera (STRokE DOC) in Arizona-The Initial Mayo Clinic Experience (AZ TIME) Investigators. CT interpretation in a telestroke network: agreement among a spoke radiologist, hub vascular neurologist, and hub neuroradiologist. Stroke. 2012 Nov;43(11):3095-7. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.666255. Epub 2012 Sep 13.
PubMed 22984007Demaerschalk BM, Raman R, Ernstrom K, Meyer BC. Efficacy of telemedicine for stroke: pooled analysis of the Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera (STRokE DOC) and STRokE DOC Arizona telestroke trials. Telemed J E Health. 2012 Apr;18(3):230-7. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2011.0116. Epub 2012 Mar 8.
PubMed 22400970Miley ML, Demaerschalk BM, Olmstead NL, Kiernan TE, Corday DA, Chikani V, Bobrow BJ. The state of emergency stroke resources and care in rural Arizona: a platform for telemedicine. Telemed J E Health. 2009 Sep;15(7):691-9. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0018.
PubMed 19694588Capampangan DJ, Wellik KE, Bobrow BJ, Aguilar MI, Ingall TJ, Kiernan TE, Wingerchuk DM, Demaerschalk BM. Telemedicine versus telephone for remote emergency stroke consultations: a critically appraised topic. Neurologist. 2009 May;15(3):163-6. doi: 10.1097/NRL.0b013e3181a4b79c.
PubMed 19430275Demaerschalk BM, Miley ML, Kiernan TE, Bobrow BJ, Corday DA, Wellik KE, Aguilar MI, Ingall TJ, Dodick DW, Brazdys K, Koch TC, Ward MP, Richemont PC; STARR Coinvestigators. Stroke telemedicine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(1):53-64. doi: 10.4065/84.1.53.
PubMed 19121244
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 May 2011. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera Arizona - The Initial Mayo Clinic Experience
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00623350
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 06-005731
- Conditions
- Stroke, Acute
- Keywords
- Telemedicine, Stroke, Acute, Rural, Thrombolysis, Consultation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Mayo ClinicUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Arizona Department of Health Services, Yuma Regional Medical Center, Kingman Regional Medical Center, University of California, San Diego
- Study start
- Dec 2007
- Primary completion
- Nov 2008 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jan 2009 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 Feb 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Noninvasive prospective multi-center study of an interactive 2-way, wireless or site-independent, audiovisual telemedicine system designed for real-time remote examination of acute stroke symptoms and deficits as a basis for treatment consultation and recommendation.
Study aims (1) to determine the impact of a site-independent, remote, telemedicine consultation system on decision making in the Emergency Department, regarding the decision to treat or not to treat with thrombolytics; (2) to assess the numbers of patients who receive thrombolytics and the time to treatment in patients evaluated by telemedicine versus telephone only; (3) to assess the appropriateness of thrombolytic treatment decisions in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations; and (4) to assess the completeness of the data collection in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations.
60 patients in Arizona with acute presentation of stroke symptoms, per bedside practitioner discretion (onset generally less than 12 hours and likely less than 3 hours)
Two arms: Video Camera/Telemedicine (Intervention n = 30) and No Video Camera/Telephone only (Control n = 30)
Detailed description
Design
Noninvasive prospective multi-center study of an interactive 2-way, wireless or site-independent, audiovisual telemedicine system designed for real-time remote examination of acute stroke symptoms and deficits as a basis for treatment consultation and recommendation.
Study aims (1) to determine the impact of a site-independent, remote, telemedicine consultation system on decision making in the Emergency Department, regarding the decision to treat or not to treat with thrombolytics; (2) to assess the numbers of patients who receive thrombolytics and the time to treatment in patients evaluated by telemedicine versus telephone only; (3) to assess the appropriateness of thrombolytic treatment decisions in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations; and (4) to assess the completeness of the data collection in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations.
60 patients in Arizona with acute presentation of stroke symptoms, per bedside practitioner discretion (onset generally less than 12 hours and likely less than 3 hours)
Two arms: Video Camera/Telemedicine (Intervention n = 30) and No Video Camera/Telephone only (Control n = 30)
Assessments
All cases will undergo the following assessments:
Patient-Level Visits
Baseline: Pre-stroke Modified Rankin Scale (demographics), pre-treatment Modified Rankin Scale, medications during prior 3 days, physical exam and vital signs, NIHSS, Modified NIHSS, EKG, screening labs, and head CT scan
Treatment: Treatment times, thrombolytic safety outcome, and recanalization treatment
Day 90: Modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, and mortality
End of Study: End of study/Termination
Meta-Level Reviews
Adjudication: Post case completion, review and evaluation of each remote consultation on whether the recommendation for or against thrombolytic therapy was appropriate, given the information presented at each of 3 levels of adjudication.
Central Read: Post case completion, review and evaluation of each Baseline head CT scan interpretation on whether there was a CT contraindication to thrombolytic therapy.
Trial Groups
There will be two trial groups in this study. The investigators hypothesized (based upon sample size calculations) that the correct treatment will be recommended at rates of 80% (telephone) and 90% (full telemedicine).
Target Population
60 AZ patients will be randomized to either telephone-only or video telemedicine consultation. Appropriateness of therapeutic decision-making, numbers treated, time to treatment, and completeness of data collection will be evaluated and compared for each group.
If the protocol or grant application is investigator-initiated, a 200-word (or less) abstract of the proposed protocol or grant application must be included (an abstract included in an NIH or other submission is acceptable). If the protocol is sponsor initiated, a summary written by the Mayo investigator must be included. Summary should include: 1) Hypothesis, 2) Basic study plan, 3) Statistical method/rationale, 4) Scientific basis or justification, 5) Inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 6) Monetary consideration. You may type or cut and paste from an existing document to address this question
Objectives
- to determine the impact of a site-independent, remote, telemedicine consultation system on decision making in the Emergency Department, regarding the decision to treat or not to treat with thrombolytics;
- to assess the numbers of patients who receive thrombolytics and the time to treatment in patients evaluated by telemedicine versus telephone only;
- to assess the appropriateness of thrombolytic treatment decisions in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations; and
- to assess the completeness of the data collection in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Active comparator | Other: TelephoneAcute Stroke Telephone consult for the decision of tPA within 3 hours of symptoms onset. |
| 2 | Active comparator | Other: Two way audio/video telemedicine consultAcute Stroke consult via audio video telemedicine for the decision of tPA within 3 hours of symptom onset. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| TelephoneAcute Stroke consult by Telephone for the decision of tPA within 3 hours of symptom onset. | Other | 1 |
| Two way audio/video telemedicine consultAcute Stroke consult by two way audio video telemedicine for the decision of tPA within 3 hours of symptom onset. | Other | 2 |
Primary outcome
to determine the impact of a site-independent, remote, telemedicine consultation system on decision making in the Emergency Department, regarding the decision to treat or not to treat with thrombolytics
Time frame: 90 days
to assess the numbers of patients who receive thrombolytics and the time to treatment in patients evaluated by telemedicine versus telephone only
Time frame: 90 days
to assess the appropriateness of thrombolytic treatment decisions in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations
Time frame: 90 days
to assess the completeness of the data collection in telemedicine versus telephone-only consultations.
Time frame: 90 days
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 May 2011.
- Results publication: PubMed 20431081Demaerschalk BM, Bobrow BJ, Raman R, Kiernan TE, Aguilar MI, Ingall TJ, Dodick DW, Ward MP, Richemont PC, Brazdys K, Koch TC, Miley ML, Hoffman Snyder CR, Corday DA, Meyer BC; STRokE DOC AZ TIME Investigators. Stroke team remote evaluation using a digital observation camera in Arizona: the initial mayo clinic experience trial. Stroke. 2010 Jun;41(6):1251-8. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.574509. Epub 2010 Apr 29.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22984007Demaerschalk BM, Bobrow BJ, Raman R, Ernstrom K, Hoxworth JM, Patel AC, Kiernan TE, Aguilar MI, Ingall TJ, Dodick DW, Meyer BC; Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera (STRokE DOC) in Arizona-The Initial Mayo Clinic Experience (AZ TIME) Investigators. CT interpretation in a telestroke network: agreement among a spoke radiologist, hub vascular neurologist, and hub neuroradiologist. Stroke. 2012 Nov;43(11):3095-7. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.666255. Epub 2012 Sep 13.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 22400970Demaerschalk BM, Raman R, Ernstrom K, Meyer BC. Efficacy of telemedicine for stroke: pooled analysis of the Stroke Team Remote Evaluation Using a Digital Observation Camera (STRokE DOC) and STRokE DOC Arizona telestroke trials. Telemed J E Health. 2012 Apr;18(3):230-7. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2011.0116. Epub 2012 Mar 8.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 19694588Miley ML, Demaerschalk BM, Olmstead NL, Kiernan TE, Corday DA, Chikani V, Bobrow BJ. The state of emergency stroke resources and care in rural Arizona: a platform for telemedicine. Telemed J E Health. 2009 Sep;15(7):691-9. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0018.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 19430275Capampangan DJ, Wellik KE, Bobrow BJ, Aguilar MI, Ingall TJ, Kiernan TE, Wingerchuk DM, Demaerschalk BM. Telemedicine versus telephone for remote emergency stroke consultations: a critically appraised topic. Neurologist. 2009 May;15(3):163-6. doi: 10.1097/NRL.0b013e3181a4b79c.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 19121244Demaerschalk BM, Miley ML, Kiernan TE, Bobrow BJ, Corday DA, Wellik KE, Aguilar MI, Ingall TJ, Dodick DW, Brazdys K, Koch TC, Ward MP, Richemont PC; STARR Coinvestigators. Stroke telemedicine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(1):53-64. doi: 10.4065/84.1.53.
Related trials for Stroke, Acute
Not yet recruiting
Cardiac CT Angiography in Acute Stroke Imaging (SCOPE-CT)
Acute Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attacks
Not yet recruitingPhase 3
Metformin in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke
Recruiting
Music Therapy in Post-Stroke Patients: A Clinical Trial
CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident), Ictus
Not yet recruiting
Selective Intra-Arterial Hypothermia After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Basilar Artery Occlusion
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Test if Tenecteplase Helps People to Recover From an Acute Stroke When Given More Than 4.5 Hours After the Person Was Last Seen Well
Acute Ischemic Stroke
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Telephone and Two way audio/video telemedicine consult in people with Stroke, Acute, run by Mayo Clinic at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 May 2011. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
to determine the impact of a site-independent, remote, telemedicine consultation system on decision making in the Emergency Department, regarding the decision to treat or not to treat with thrombolytics (time frame: 90 days). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00623350, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 May 2011.