StrokeTRIAGENCT03542188
TReatment Strategy In Acute Ischemic larGE Vessel STROKE: Prioritize Thrombolysis or Endovascular Treatment
A study testing Primary Stroke Center (PSC) and Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) in people with Stroke, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.
Trial summary
Should we prioritize thrombectomy or thrombolysis in acute stroke? Finding the answer to this question will improve treatment and outcome for stroke patients only by changing triage and transportation. And it will have implications for stroke patients around the world. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke
- What is being tested?
- Primary Stroke Center (PSC) and Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC)
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 174 participants
- Where
- 1 siteDenmark
- Study dates
- 3 Sep 2018to 31 Aug 2022
- 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
Who may be able to join
- Symptoms of acute stroke
- No contraindication for IV thrombolysis
- Stroke occurring ("pick up" place) in catchment area of a primary stroke center
- The patient has Pre-hospital Acute Stroke Severity (PASS) score ≥2
- Pre-stroke modified Rankin Score 0-2 (meaning living independently.)
- Feasible to start IV-thrombolysis within 4.5 hours at CSC
Who cannot join
- Syncope
- Seizure
- Known diagnosis of epilepsy
- Medical condition and no signs of stroke (e.g. hypoglycemia)
- In-hospital strokes
- Life expectancy of less than 1 year.
Show all 9Show fewer
- Exclusion criteria for the analysis of the ischemic patients (to be determined after admission at stroke center)
- Imaging showing ICH
- Stroke mimics
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Should we prioritize thrombectomy or thrombolysis in acute stroke? Finding the answer to this question will improve treatment and outcome for stroke patients only by changing triage and transportation. And it will have implications for stroke patients around the world.
The investigators propose a national investigator-driven, multi-center, randomised single-blinded clinical trial to investigate which treatment strategy is superior in patients with acute stroke and suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO): direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center for early endovascular therapy (EVT) or to a primary stroke center for early IV thrombolysis followed by secondary transport to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT if needed.
Read more
Effective reperfusion therapy marks a new era within stroke medicine and has been driving major changes in the organization of care within the last decade. Timely thrombolysis and/or EVT in acute ischemic stroke is a key factor for improved outcome. Major stroke occur in 25% of all cases and is caused by LVO. Major strokes have approximately 60% risk of severe disability or death at three months if not treated. EVT is superior to thrombolysis in strokes caused by a LVO, but EVT is only performed in specialized centers due to the complexity of the treatment and need for skilled neurointerventionalists.
A simple stroke severity score has been developed, that can identify most patients with LVO in the pre-hospital setting. This enables selection of patients with a suspected LVO to be transported without delay directly to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT while potentially bypassing a nearer primary stroke center for IV-thrombolysis.
Study results will have major impact of future acute stroke treatment and organization.
Read the detailed description
Project description In the new area of reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) a major question has emerged: Should the Emergency Medical Service take the patient to the nearest primary stroke center (for fast thrombolysis) or should they bypass the primary stroke center and take the patient directly to a comprehensive stroke center with endovascular capabilities? We propose a randomized controlled single-blind trial to explore this worldwide clinical dilemma.
Objective To determine if direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center improves outcome for patients with suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO) that occur in the catchment area of a primary stroke center without potentially harming patients who only need thrombolysis.
Hypothesis
The guidelines tell us to admit a stroke patient to the nearest stroke hospital. The investigators wish to perform the study because we believe that in case of LVO, direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center is a better strategy. The investigators hypothesize that:
- A symptom based triage strategy in the catchment area of the primary stroke center results in net benefit for patients with AIS.
- AIS patients with a LVO occurring in a primary stroke center catchment area will have better clinical outcome at 90 days if they are transported directly to a comprehensive stroke center.
- AIS patients without LVO at admission might be subjected to a longer transport to a comprehensive stroke center and a longer delay to IV thrombolysis, but this will not translate into a poorer prognosis for patients with AIS.
- Patients suspected to have LVO who turn out to have ICH or stroke mimics after imaging on admission will not be harmed from being randomized to alternative pre-hospital transport strategies.
The investigators formulate the null hypothesis:
The transport strategy of an ischemic stroke patients does not influence outcome.
Review of existing knowledge in the field The possibility of effective reperfusion therapy marks a new era within treatment of stroke and has been driving major changes in the organization of care within the last decade. Timely IV-thrombolysis and/or endovascular therapy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke is a key factor for improved outcome. Major stroke occur in 25% of all cases and is caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). Major strokes have approximately 60% risk of severe disability or death at three months if not treated. EVT is superior to IV-thrombolysis in strokes caused by a LVO (1), but not every IV-thrombolysis center can perform endovascular therapy due to the complexity of the treatment and need for skilled neurointerventionalists.
Methods and materials A national investigator-driven, multi-center, randomized, single-blinded, clinical trial to investigate which logistic strategy is best in acute stroke with suspected LVO: direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center for early EVT or to a primary stroke center for early IV-thrombolysis followed by a secondary transport to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT if needed (TRIAGE-STROKE).
Prehospital identification of LVO The patient with a suspected LVO is the focus of our study. At the same time, the investigators do not wish to "harm" the patients without a LVO by giving them a longer time to treatment.
The patient or a bystander will have called for help and the Emergency Medical Service will be send to the patient. To identify LVO the investigators will use the PASS scale in the prehospital examination: The patient is asked the month and age, gaze palsy and/or deviation is registered and arm drift is examined. A score of 2 or 3 points at PASS predict a LVO. PASS is implemented i a new score system called Prehospital Stroke Score (PreSS) as PreSS part 2 in the central region of Denmark.
If the "pick up" place is near a comprehensive stroke center, the patient will be admitted there regardless of the score. If the "pick up" place is nearer a primary stroke center, the patient will enter STROKE-TRIAGE. In both cases admission is agreed after telephone contact between ambulance and the senior "EVT/thrombolysis doctor" on call. At admission whether at the primary or the comprehensive stroke center indication for IV thrombolysis and EVT treatment will be evaluated according to national clinical guidelines for IV thrombolysis/EVT treatment.
Randomization and consent The investigators will conduct the study as an acute study and randomize between the two transport strategies without consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from patient or relative prior to randomization. The patients and their relatives will be informed afterwards that the patient was enrolled in a study, but that the study only involved the transport strategy and that they otherwise received standard treatment We will ask for his acceptance to be in the study to collect his or her medical information for research purposes. The patient can withdraw consent anytime.
The patient will be randomized for primary transport to either the primary stroke center or the comprehensive stroke center. The randomization will be 1:1.
Data collection and statistics Follow-up of all patients with suspected stroke is possible by unambiguous individual level record linkage between high quality nationwide population-based registries using the unique individual civil registration number (CPR), which is provided to all Danish citizens upon birth or immigration. For patients with a confirmed stroke diagnosis after in-hospital diagnostic work-up the investigators will collect all pre-hospital time registrations, all demographic and stroke related data from the Danish Stroke Register and electronic prehospital patient records located at the regional Emergency Medical Communication Centers.
Baseline characteristics will be summarized by means of simple descriptive statistics. The primary analysis consists of a comparison of the primary outcome after 90 days between the trial treatment groups. In all analyses, statistical precision will be expressed by means of 95% CI. A detailed statistical analysis plan will be prepared prior to the start of analyses.
Risks and Safety It sounds reasonable that patients with LVO might benefit from faster transport to a comprehensive stroke center, but by subjecting a group of stroke patients to a longer transport, patients who at admission only need IV-thrombolysis or have intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), will risk a longer time to their treatment. This may happen in a small number of AIS patients with spontaneous clot resolution during transport or the clot may be too distal to be reached by catheter. The balance of risk versus benefit of the two logistic approaches is unknown. For patients where imaging at admission show an ICH a longer transport time is not known to expose the patient to any harm.
If the local investigator or other member of the team at a center have a concern about the outcome of their trial procedures, they should inform the trial coordinator, which will organize a blinded assessment of the relevant outcome events
Ethical considerations Since the majority of the patients are incompetent at admission and since the treatment is severely time dependent, the investigators find that the conditions for an acute study are fulfilled. Eventually some patients randomized in the ambulance have an ICH or stroke mimic i.e. tumor. These patients will not be exposed to any harm from a potential longer transport time, since treatment is not severely time dependent. Furthermore, ICH patients may profit if transported directly to a comprehensive stroke center easy access to neurosurgery service.
Lastly, there is equipoise as to what transport strategy is best, so the patients will not risk getting a lower-than standard treatment.
The clinical study will be conducted, and essential documentation archived, in compliance with UCR SOPs and standards, which incorporate the requirements of the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice and EN ISO 14155:2011(E).
Cost-effectiveness analysis A full cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted according to international guidelines for the economic evaluation alongside clinical trials. Patient specific data for resource usage will be retrieved from Danish registries (covering the period from one year prior to one year after enrolment), and a micro costing study will be conducted to estimate the extra time and resources at the clinics needed to bypass the PSC for patients with symptoms of large- vessel occlusion compared to usual practice. A full health economic evaluation including a budget impact analysis will be conducted to illustrate the incremental costs and gained QALYs as well as the total national costs and consequences of bypassing the PSC for same patient group nationwide in Denmark.
Sample size Based upon previous trials the investigators have estimated that a good outcome can be measured by including a little less than 300 patients in each arm. We aim at including 600 patients. Samplesize is reestimated as soon as 200 patients have been followed up
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Being tested
- Primary Stroke Center (PSC), Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC)
- Keywords
- Large Vessel Occlusion, Stroke, EVT
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Primary Stroke Center (PSC)Behavioural
Transport to a primary stroke center for early IV-thrombolysis followed by a secondary transport to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT if needed.
Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC)Behavioural
Direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center for IV-thrombolysis and early EVT.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Stroke Center (PSC) | Active comparator | Transport to a primary stroke center for early IV-thrombolysis followed by a secondary transport to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT if needed. Receives: Behavioral: Primary Stroke Center (PSC); Behavioral: Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) |
| Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) | Experimental | Direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center for IV-trombolysis and early EVT. Receives: Behavioral: Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
mRS score after 90 days for AIS patients
Blinded outcome of functional disability at 90 days using modified Rankin Score (mRS) ranging from no symptoms (score 0) to dead (score 6) analyzed as shift analysis in all patients ending with diagnosis of AIS.
Measured: 90 days
Secondary outcomes (11)
mRS score after 90 days (shift analysis) for all randomized.
Blinded outcome of functional disability at 90 days using modified Rankin Score (mRS) ranging from no symptoms (score 0) to dead (score 6) analyzed as shift analysis in all randomized patients
Measured: 90 days
mRS score after 90 days (shift analysis) for AIS patients without LVO
Blinded outcome of functional disability at 90 days using modified Rankin Score (mRS) ranging from no symptoms (score 0) to dead (score 6) analyzed as shift analysis in all patiens without LVO
Measured: 90 days
mRS score after 90 days (shift analysis) for patients with hemorrhagic stroke
Blinded outcome of functional disability at 90 days using modified Rankin Score (mRS) ranging from no symptoms (score 0) to dead (score 6) analyzed as shift analysis in all with hemorrhagic stroke
Measured: 90 days
mRS score after 90 days (shift analysis) for patients with stroke mimics
Blinded outcome of functional disability at 90 days using modified Rankin Score (mRS) ranging from no symptoms (score 0) to dead (score 6) analyzed as shift analysis in all patients with stroke mimics
Measured: 90 days
mRS score ≤2 (independent) after 90 days for AIS patients treated with EVT
Blinded outcome of functional disability at 90 days using modified Rankin Score (mRS) ranging from no symptoms (score 0) to dead (score 6) analyzed as shift analysis in all patients treated with EVT
Measured: 90 days
Severe dependency or death after 90 days for AIS patients treated with EVT
mRS score 5+6 (severe dependency or death) after 90 days for AIS patients treated with EVT. (Safety endpoint.)
Measured: 90 days
Severe dependency or death after 90 days in patients with hemorrhagic stroke
mRS score 5+6 (severe dependency or death) after 90 days in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. (Safety endpoint.)
Measured: 90 days
Times (from onset, pick-up and arrival) to groin puncture for patients treated with EVT
Mean time to groin puncture for patients treated with EVT
Measured: 1 day
Times (from onset, pick-up and arrival)to IV thrombolysis for patients treated with IV thrombolysis only.
Mean time to IV thrombolysis for patients treated with IV thrombolysis only. (Safety endpoint.)
Measured: 1 day
Successful re-perfusion in EVT treated
modified Trombolysis In Cerebral Iscemia (TICI) 2b-3
Measured: 1 day
Length of stay at CSC for all patients withpot LVO
Median time in hours at CSC
Measured: 1 week
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 May 2018
- Study start3 Sep 2018
- Primary completion31 Aug 2022
- Study completion31 Aug 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (5)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of AarhusThe 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
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator
- Enrolment
- 174 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Aarhus
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Aarhus University Hospital
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Claus Z Simonsen, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Aarhus University HospitalGrethe Andersen, Professor, Study director, Aarhus University Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03542188
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CT1-10-72-28-18
- Acronym
- TRIAGE
- Status last verified
- Dec 2022
- First submitted
- 16 May 2018
- Last updated
- 14 Dec 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Southerland AM, Johnston KC, Molina CA, Selim MH, Kamal N, Goyal M. Suspected Large Vessel Occlusion: Should Emergency Medical Services Transport to the Nearest Primary Stroke Center or Bypass to a Comprehensive Stroke Center With Endovascular Capabilities? Stroke. 2016 Jul;47(7):1965-7. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011149. Epub 2016 Feb 19. No abstract available.
PubMed 26896433Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, Dippel DW, Mitchell PJ, Demchuk AM, Davalos A, Majoie CB, van der Lugt A, de Miquel MA, Donnan GA, Roos YB, Bonafe A, Jahan R, Diener HC, van den Berg LA, Levy EI, Berkhemer OA, Pereira VM, Rempel J, Millan M, Davis SM, Roy D, Thornton J, Roman LS, Ribo M, Beumer D, Stouch B, Brown S, Campbell BC, van Oostenbrugge RJ, Saver JL, Hill MD, Jovin TG; HERMES collaborators. Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00163-X. Epub 2016 Feb 18.
PubMed 26898852Jovin TG, Chamorro A, Cobo E, de Miquel MA, Molina CA, Rovira A, San Roman L, Serena J, Abilleira S, Ribo M, Millan M, Urra X, Cardona P, Lopez-Cancio E, Tomasello A, Castano C, Blasco J, Aja L, Dorado L, Quesada H, Rubiera M, Hernandez-Perez M, Goyal M, Demchuk AM, von Kummer R, Gallofre M, Davalos A; REVASCAT Trial Investigators. Thrombectomy within 8 hours after symptom onset in ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2296-306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503780. Epub 2015 Apr 17.
PubMed 25882510Hastrup S, Damgaard D, Johnsen SP, Andersen G. Prehospital Acute Stroke Severity Scale to Predict Large Artery Occlusion: Design and Comparison With Other Scales. Stroke. 2016 Jul;47(7):1772-6. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.012482. Epub 2016 Jun 7.
PubMed 27272487Behrndtz A, Blauenfeldt RA, Johnsen SP, Valentin JB, Gude MF, Al-Jazi MA, von Weitzel-Mudersbach P, Modrau B, Damgaard D, Hougaard KD, Hjort N, Diedrichsen T, Poulsen M, Schmitz ML, Fisher M, Andersen G, Simonsen CZ; TRIAGE-STROKE Trial Investigators. Transport Strategy in Patients With Suspected Acute Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke: TRIAGE-STROKE, a Randomized Clinical Trial. Stroke. 2023 Nov;54(11):2714-2723. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.043875. Epub 2023 Oct 6.
PubMed 37800374
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Dec 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- TReatment Strategy In Acute Ischemic larGE Vessel STROKE: Prioritize Thrombolysis or Endovascular Treatment
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03542188
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- TRIAGE / CT1-10-72-28-18
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Keywords
- Large Vessel Occlusion, Stroke, EVT
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 174 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AarhusUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Aarhus University Hospital
- Study start
- 3 Sep 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Aug 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Aug 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 31 May 2018 (actual)
- 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.
Should we prioritize thrombectomy or thrombolysis in acute stroke? Finding the answer to this question will improve treatment and outcome for stroke patients only by changing triage and transportation. And it will have implications for stroke patients around the world.
The investigators propose a national investigator-driven, multi-center, randomised single-blinded clinical trial to investigate which treatment strategy is superior in patients with acute stroke and suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO): direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center for early endovascular therapy (EVT) or to a primary stroke center for early IV thrombolysis followed by secondary transport to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT if needed.
Effective reperfusion therapy marks a new era within stroke medicine and has been driving major changes in the organization of care within the last decade. Timely thrombolysis and/or EVT in acute ischemic stroke is a key factor for improved outcome. Major stroke occur in 25% of all cases and is caused by LVO. Major strokes have approximately 60% risk of severe disability or death at three months if not treated. EVT is superior to thrombolysis in strokes caused by a LVO, but EVT is only performed in specialized centers due to the complexity of the treatment and need for skilled neurointerventionalists.
A simple stroke severity score has been developed, that can identify most patients with LVO in the pre-hospital setting. This enables selection of patients with a suspected LVO to be transported without delay directly to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT while potentially bypassing a nearer primary stroke center for IV-thrombolysis.
Study results will have major impact of future acute stroke treatment and organization.
Detailed description
Project description In the new area of reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) a major question has emerged: Should the Emergency Medical Service take the patient to the nearest primary stroke center (for fast thrombolysis) or should they bypass the primary stroke center and take the patient directly to a comprehensive stroke center with endovascular capabilities? We propose a randomized controlled single-blind trial to explore this worldwide clinical dilemma.
Objective To determine if direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center improves outcome for patients with suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO) that occur in the catchment area of a primary stroke center without potentially harming patients who only need thrombolysis.
Hypothesis
The guidelines tell us to admit a stroke patient to the nearest stroke hospital. The investigators wish to perform the study because we believe that in case of LVO, direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center is a better strategy. The investigators hypothesize that:
- A symptom based triage strategy in the catchment area of the primary stroke center results in net benefit for patients with AIS.
- AIS patients with a LVO occurring in a primary stroke center catchment area will have better clinical outcome at 90 days if they are transported directly to a comprehensive stroke center.
- AIS patients without LVO at admission might be subjected to a longer transport to a comprehensive stroke center and a longer delay to IV thrombolysis, but this will not translate into a poorer prognosis for patients with AIS.
- Patients suspected to have LVO who turn out to have ICH or stroke mimics after imaging on admission will not be harmed from being randomized to alternative pre-hospital transport strategies.
The investigators formulate the null hypothesis:
The transport strategy of an ischemic stroke patients does not influence outcome.
Review of existing knowledge in the field The possibility of effective reperfusion therapy marks a new era within treatment of stroke and has been driving major changes in the organization of care within the last decade. Timely IV-thrombolysis and/or endovascular therapy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke is a key factor for improved outcome. Major stroke occur in 25% of all cases and is caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). Major strokes have approximately 60% risk of severe disability or death at three months if not treated. EVT is superior to IV-thrombolysis in strokes caused by a LVO (1), but not every IV-thrombolysis center can perform endovascular therapy due to the complexity of the treatment and need for skilled neurointerventionalists.
Methods and materials A national investigator-driven, multi-center, randomized, single-blinded, clinical trial to investigate which logistic strategy is best in acute stroke with suspected LVO: direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center for early EVT or to a primary stroke center for early IV-thrombolysis followed by a secondary transport to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT if needed (TRIAGE-STROKE).
Prehospital identification of LVO The patient with a suspected LVO is the focus of our study. At the same time, the investigators do not wish to "harm" the patients without a LVO by giving them a longer time to treatment.
The patient or a bystander will have called for help and the Emergency Medical Service will be send to the patient. To identify LVO the investigators will use the PASS scale in the prehospital examination: The patient is asked the month and age, gaze palsy and/or deviation is registered and arm drift is examined. A score of 2 or 3 points at PASS predict a LVO. PASS is implemented i a new score system called Prehospital Stroke Score (PreSS) as PreSS part 2 in the central region of Denmark.
If the "pick up" place is near a comprehensive stroke center, the patient will be admitted there regardless of the score. If the "pick up" place is nearer a primary stroke center, the patient will enter STROKE-TRIAGE. In both cases admission is agreed after telephone contact between ambulance and the senior "EVT/thrombolysis doctor" on call. At admission whether at the primary or the comprehensive stroke center indication for IV thrombolysis and EVT treatment will be evaluated according to national clinical guidelines for IV thrombolysis/EVT treatment.
Randomization and consent The investigators will conduct the study as an acute study and randomize between the two transport strategies without consent, as it is not possible to obtain consent from patient or relative prior to randomization. The patients and their relatives will be informed afterwards that the patient was enrolled in a study, but that the study only involved the transport strategy and that they otherwise received standard treatment We will ask for his acceptance to be in the study to collect his or her medical information for research purposes. The patient can withdraw consent anytime.
The patient will be randomized for primary transport to either the primary stroke center or the comprehensive stroke center. The randomization will be 1:1.
Data collection and statistics Follow-up of all patients with suspected stroke is possible by unambiguous individual level record linkage between high quality nationwide population-based registries using the unique individual civil registration number (CPR), which is provided to all Danish citizens upon birth or immigration. For patients with a confirmed stroke diagnosis after in-hospital diagnostic work-up the investigators will collect all pre-hospital time registrations, all demographic and stroke related data from the Danish Stroke Register and electronic prehospital patient records located at the regional Emergency Medical Communication Centers.
Baseline characteristics will be summarized by means of simple descriptive statistics. The primary analysis consists of a comparison of the primary outcome after 90 days between the trial treatment groups. In all analyses, statistical precision will be expressed by means of 95% CI. A detailed statistical analysis plan will be prepared prior to the start of analyses.
Risks and Safety It sounds reasonable that patients with LVO might benefit from faster transport to a comprehensive stroke center, but by subjecting a group of stroke patients to a longer transport, patients who at admission only need IV-thrombolysis or have intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), will risk a longer time to their treatment. This may happen in a small number of AIS patients with spontaneous clot resolution during transport or the clot may be too distal to be reached by catheter. The balance of risk versus benefit of the two logistic approaches is unknown. For patients where imaging at admission show an ICH a longer transport time is not known to expose the patient to any harm.
If the local investigator or other member of the team at a center have a concern about the outcome of their trial procedures, they should inform the trial coordinator, which will organize a blinded assessment of the relevant outcome events
Ethical considerations Since the majority of the patients are incompetent at admission and since the treatment is severely time dependent, the investigators find that the conditions for an acute study are fulfilled. Eventually some patients randomized in the ambulance have an ICH or stroke mimic i.e. tumor. These patients will not be exposed to any harm from a potential longer transport time, since treatment is not severely time dependent. Furthermore, ICH patients may profit if transported directly to a comprehensive stroke center easy access to neurosurgery service.
Lastly, there is equipoise as to what transport strategy is best, so the patients will not risk getting a lower-than standard treatment.
The clinical study will be conducted, and essential documentation archived, in compliance with UCR SOPs and standards, which incorporate the requirements of the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice and EN ISO 14155:2011(E).
Cost-effectiveness analysis A full cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted according to international guidelines for the economic evaluation alongside clinical trials. Patient specific data for resource usage will be retrieved from Danish registries (covering the period from one year prior to one year after enrolment), and a micro costing study will be conducted to estimate the extra time and resources at the clinics needed to bypass the PSC for patients with symptoms of large- vessel occlusion compared to usual practice. A full health economic evaluation including a budget impact analysis will be conducted to illustrate the incremental costs and gained QALYs as well as the total national costs and consequences of bypassing the PSC for same patient group nationwide in Denmark.
Sample size Based upon previous trials the investigators have estimated that a good outcome can be measured by including a little less than 300 patients in each arm. We aim at including 600 patients. Samplesize is reestimated as soon as 200 patients have been followed up
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Stroke Center (PSC) | Active comparator | Behavioral: Primary Stroke Center (PSC), Behavioral: Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC)Transport to a primary stroke center for early IV-thrombolysis followed by a secondary transport to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT if needed. |
| Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) | Experimental | Behavioral: Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC)Direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center for IV-trombolysis and early EVT. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Symptoms of acute stroke
- No contraindication for IV thrombolysis
- Stroke occurring ("pick up" place) in catchment area of a primary stroke center
- The patient has Pre-hospital Acute Stroke Severity (PASS) score ≥2
- Pre-stroke modified Rankin Score 0-2 (meaning living independently.)
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Syncope
- Seizure
- Known diagnosis of epilepsy
- Medical condition and no signs of stroke (e.g. hypoglycemia)
- In-hospital strokes
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Stroke Center (PSC)Transport to a primary stroke center for early IV-thrombolysis followed by a secondary transport to a comprehensive stroke center for EVT if needed. | Behavioural | Primary Stroke Center (PSC) |
| Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC)Direct transport to a comprehensive stroke center for IV-thrombolysis and early EVT. | Behavioural | Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC), Primary Stroke Center (PSC) |
Primary outcome
mRS score after 90 days for AIS patients
Time frame: 90 days
Blinded outcome of functional disability at 90 days using modified Rankin Score (mRS) ranging from no symptoms (score 0) to dead (score 6) analyzed as shift analysis in all patients ending with diagnosis of AIS.
11 secondary outcomes
mRS score after 90 days (shift analysis) for all randomized.
Time frame: 90 days
mRS score after 90 days (shift analysis) for AIS patients without LVO
Time frame: 90 days
mRS score after 90 days (shift analysis) for patients with hemorrhagic stroke
Time frame: 90 days
mRS score after 90 days (shift analysis) for patients with stroke mimics
Time frame: 90 days
mRS score ≤2 (independent) after 90 days for AIS patients treated with EVT
Time frame: 90 days
Severe dependency or death after 90 days for AIS patients treated with EVT
Time frame: 90 days
Severe dependency or death after 90 days in patients with hemorrhagic stroke
Time frame: 90 days
Times (from onset, pick-up and arrival) to groin puncture for patients treated with EVT
Time frame: 1 day
Times (from onset, pick-up and arrival)to IV thrombolysis for patients treated with IV thrombolysis only.
Time frame: 1 day
Successful re-perfusion in EVT treated
Time frame: 1 day
Length of stay at CSC for all patients withpot LVO
Time frame: 1 week
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 14 Dec 2022.
- Background: PubMed 26896433Southerland AM, Johnston KC, Molina CA, Selim MH, Kamal N, Goyal M. Suspected Large Vessel Occlusion: Should Emergency Medical Services Transport to the Nearest Primary Stroke Center or Bypass to a Comprehensive Stroke Center With Endovascular Capabilities? Stroke. 2016 Jul;47(7):1965-7. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011149. Epub 2016 Feb 19. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 26898852Goyal M, Menon BK, van Zwam WH, Dippel DW, Mitchell PJ, Demchuk AM, Davalos A, Majoie CB, van der Lugt A, de Miquel MA, Donnan GA, Roos YB, Bonafe A, Jahan R, Diener HC, van den Berg LA, Levy EI, Berkhemer OA, Pereira VM, Rempel J, Millan M, Davis SM, Roy D, Thornton J, Roman LS, Ribo M, Beumer D, Stouch B, Brown S, Campbell BC, van Oostenbrugge RJ, Saver JL, Hill MD, Jovin TG; HERMES collaborators. Endovascular thrombectomy after large-vessel ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised trials. Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00163-X. Epub 2016 Feb 18.
- Background: PubMed 25882510Jovin TG, Chamorro A, Cobo E, de Miquel MA, Molina CA, Rovira A, San Roman L, Serena J, Abilleira S, Ribo M, Millan M, Urra X, Cardona P, Lopez-Cancio E, Tomasello A, Castano C, Blasco J, Aja L, Dorado L, Quesada H, Rubiera M, Hernandez-Perez M, Goyal M, Demchuk AM, von Kummer R, Gallofre M, Davalos A; REVASCAT Trial Investigators. Thrombectomy within 8 hours after symptom onset in ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 11;372(24):2296-306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503780. Epub 2015 Apr 17.
- Background: PubMed 27272487Hastrup S, Damgaard D, Johnsen SP, Andersen G. Prehospital Acute Stroke Severity Scale to Predict Large Artery Occlusion: Design and Comparison With Other Scales. Stroke. 2016 Jul;47(7):1772-6. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.012482. Epub 2016 Jun 7.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 37800374Behrndtz A, Blauenfeldt RA, Johnsen SP, Valentin JB, Gude MF, Al-Jazi MA, von Weitzel-Mudersbach P, Modrau B, Damgaard D, Hougaard KD, Hjort N, Diedrichsen T, Poulsen M, Schmitz ML, Fisher M, Andersen G, Simonsen CZ; TRIAGE-STROKE Trial Investigators. Transport Strategy in Patients With Suspected Acute Large Vessel Occlusion Stroke: TRIAGE-STROKE, a Randomized Clinical Trial. Stroke. 2023 Nov;54(11):2714-2723. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.123.043875. Epub 2023 Oct 6.
- national clinical guidelinesLink provided by the sponsor.
- Danish Stroke RegistryLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Temporal Interference Stimulation for Upper-Limb Motor Recovery in Early Subacute Stroke
Acute Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
ELATE Study: Evaluating Large-vessel Acute Thrombectomy in Extended Time Window
Acute Ichemic Stroke
Recruiting
Web-Based Tele-Rehabilitation Using Action Observation and Mirror Therapy for Subacute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Stroke, Upper Extremity Paresis
Recruiting
Early Motor-Cognitive Integrative Training on Cognitive and Motor Performance in Patients With Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Subarachnoid Aneurysm Hemorrhage
Not yet recruiting
Selective Intra-Arterial Hypothermia After Endovascular Treatment for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion
Acute Ischemic Stroke, Basilar Artery Occlusion
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.
Claus Z Simonsen, MD, PhD principal investigator
Aarhus University Hospital
Grethe Andersen, Professor study director
Aarhus University Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Primary Stroke Center (PSC) and Comprehensive Stroke Center (CSC) in people with Stroke, run by University of Aarhus at 1 site in Denmark.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. 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 14 Dec 2022. 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 Denmark. 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?
mRS score after 90 days for AIS patients (time frame: 90 days). 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 NCT03542188, which also lists 5 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 14 Dec 2022.