Medical attention seeking by suspected stroke patients: Emergency medical services or general practitioner?

Objective: Awareness campaigns advise the public to call emergency medical services (EMS) directly in case of suspected stroke. We aimed to explore patient and notification characteristics that influence direct EMS notification, the time to alert, and the time to treatment. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis with data from the PRESTO study, a multi-center prospective observational cohort study that included patients with suspected stroke. We used multivariable binary logistic regression analyses to assess the association with direct EMS notification and multivariable linear regression analyses to assess the association with the onset-to-alert time, onset-to-needle time and onset-to-groin time. Results: Of 436 included patients, 208 patients (48%) contacted EMS directly. FAST scores (aOR 1.45 for every point increase, 95%CI: 1.14–1.86), alert outside office hours (aOR 1.64 [1.05–2.55]), and onset-to-alert time (aOR for every minute less [≤55 min]: 0.96 [0.95–0.97]) were independently associated with direct EMS notification. Direct EMS call was independently associated with shorter onset-to-alert times (27 min [54–0.84]) and with shorter onset-to-needle times (−30 min [−51 to −10]). The association between direct EMS call and the onset-to-groin time was almost similar to the association with onset-to-needle time, though not statistically significant (univariable analysis: 23.7 min decrease [−103.7 to 56.2]). Conclusion: More than half of all patients with suspected stroke do not call EMS directly but call their GP instead. Patients with higher FAST scores, alert outside office hours, and a rapid alert, more often call EMS directly. Patients who call EMS directly are treated with IVT 30 min faster than patients who call the GP first. Trial registration number: Netherlands Trial Register: NL7387, (www.trialregister.nl).