To the Editor,
We read with great interest the article written by Vuorinen et al. titled “A Transfer Strategy Utilizing a Helicopter and a Ground Ambulance Together Does Not Prolong Door‐In‐ Door Out Times in Thrombectomy Patients: A Retrospective Analysis” [1], which evaluates the logistics of stroke transfers utilizing a hybrid transport approach. While the study significantly advances the field, we would like to highlight a few limitations and contradictions that, if addressed, could enhance the robustness of the study.
The study appropriately focuses on process efficiency, that is, the DIDO (Door‐In‐Door‐Out) time. However, it does not address its clinical outcomes, whether reducing DIDO time improved patient survival, neurological recovery, functional status (mRS ≤ 2), or quality of life. Such costly healthcare decisions, such as deploying helicopters, must be based on patient‐centered clinical outcomes. Another study evaluated the significant impact of reduced DIDO time on functional clinical outcomes in patients having large vessel occlusion strokes and undergoing thrombectomy [2]. Including such outcome analysis would increase the clinical relevance and applicability of the study.
Secondly, the study analyzes whether using both ground ambulances and helicopters to move thrombectomy patients causes a delay in the DIDO time at the primary stroke center.
However, the study does not stratify or analyze patients according to their estimated travel times or distance from the thrombectomy center. Regardless of time travel or distance, it treats every patient in equal measure. HEMS' importance usually varies greatly with distance. A helicopter might not save enough time to be worth using if the patients are transferred straight from the scene or over short distances [3]. Moreover, HEMS is costly and may not be helpful if the patients live far from the thrombectomy center. McMeekin et al. (2021) concluded that helicopter transfers are only cost‐effective if they save at least 60 min compared to ground transport [4].
Moreover, since DIDO time directly affects the results for patients requiring thrombectomy, it is often recognized as an important indicator in acute stroke therapy. Established clinical protocols emphasize that reducing DIDO is essential because delays can have a major impact on recovery from stroke. However, this study shows no association between the period of DIDO and the administration of thrombolysis (p = 0.64). This result contrasts with other studies, such as Prabhakaran et al. (Ann Emerg Med. 2021), which found that thrombolysis improves in‐hospital workflow and typically cuts DIDO by 28 to 45 min [5]. The research does not address potential reasons for this divergence, even though local methods, workflow variations, or sample size may impact these findings. To achieve optimal stroke transfer methods and enhance patient outcomes, we encourage the authors to elaborate on factors that might explain this difference from established literature.
Nevertheless, we commend the authors for conducting this impactful study. However, we believe that considering the aforementioned points will increase the robustness, clinical applicability, and generalizability of future studies.
Author Contributions
Noor Un Nisa: conceptualization, writing – review and editing. Umar Aziz: conceptualization, writing – review and editing. Shah Jahan: conceptualization, writing – review and editing.
Ethics Statement
The authors have nothing to report.
Consent
All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript and consent to its submission.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Linked Articles
This article is linked to Vuorinen et al. papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.70148.
Acknowledgments
The authors used generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT) for language editing and grammar suggestions during manuscript preparation. All content was reviewed and approved by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final version.
Nisa N. U., Aziz U., and Jahan S., ““Letter to the Editor: A Transfer Strategy Utilizing a Helicopter and a Ground Ambulance Together Does Not Prolong Door‐In‐Door‐Out Times in Thrombectomy Patients: A Retrospective Analysis”,” European Journal of Neurology 32, no. 7 (2025): e70306, 10.1111/ene.70306.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
References
- 1. Vuorinen P., Kiili J., Grönroos M., et al., “A Transfer Strategy Utilizing a Helicopter and a Ground Ambulance Together Does Not Prolong Door‐In‐Door‐Out Times in Thrombectomy Patients: A Retrospective Analysis,” European Journal of Neurology 32, no. 6 (2025): e70148, 10.1111/ene.70148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Nguyen M., Shah S., Patel S., et al., “Association Between Thrombectomy Volume and Door‐In‐Door‐Out Time in Stroke Patients at Transferring Emergency Departments,” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 24, no. 3 (2023): 398–405, 10.5811/westjem.58946. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Vuorinen P., Setälä P., Ollikainen J., and Hoppu S., “A Hybrid Strategy Using an Ambulance and a Helicopter to Convey Thrombectomy Candidates to Definite Care: A Prospective Observational Study,” BMC Emergency Medicine 24, no. 1 (2024): 17, 10.1186/s12873-024-00931-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Coughlan D., McMeekin P., Flynn D., et al., “Secondary Transfer of Emergency Stroke Patients Eligible for Mechanical Thrombectomy by Air in Rural England: Economic Evaluation and Considerations,” Emergency Medicine Journal 38, no. 1 (2021): 33–39, 10.1136/emermed-2019-209039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Prabhakaran S., Khorzad R., Parnianpour Z., et al., “Door‐In‐Door‐Out Process Times at Primary Stroke Centers in Chicago,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 78, no. 5 (2021): 674–681, 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2021.06.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.