Sex differences in the management of suspected stroke in a telestroke network

BACKGROUND The evolution of ischemic stroke is different according to sex and is one of the main causes of death in women. In the literature, it is not clear if this is due to biological differences or to disparities in medical care. Previous studies have shown that women are less likely to receive acute treatment, and stroke center type is an important predictor of door-to-needle times. We investigated whether women are attended in a similar way to men in the telestroke network with specialized stroke physicians. METHODS A prospective registry of ischemic strokes recorded in the centralized Andalusian telestroke network (CATI) was analyzed, focusing on sex differences. Demographic data, clinical characteristics (risk factors), neuroimaging data, treatment intervals, and clinical results (the modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score) were collected. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the mRS at 90 days. RESULTS A total of 3009 suspected stroke patients were attended to in the telestroke network in the last three years, of which 42.74% were women. A total of 69.54% of the men and 63.85% of the women were diagnosed with ischemic stroke (p=0.002). Women were older (p>0.001) and less independent upon arrival (p=0.006) than men. There was no difference in the treatment received or in the treatment intervals between the groups. Importantly, there was no difference in mRS scores at 3 months between sexes. However, at follow-up, women had fewer imaging tests (p = 0.018) and fewer outpatient visits (p<0.001) than men. CONCLUSIONS No significant difference between men and women has been found in the acute treatment of stroke in a large telestroke network. However, the same is not true for the follow-up and management of patients after the acute phase. This fact supports that strict adherence to protocols, training, and specialization of care and providing equal attention prevents sex differences in stroke treatment and functional outcomes. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Trial Retrospective study ### Funding Statement This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The study was approved by the regional ethics committee, PEIBA (Portal de Ética de la Investigación Biomédica de Andalucía) (protocol number: 1818-N-19). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes The present study is compliant with the journal's data availability standards, and any data not provided in the article may be shared by request of other qualified investigators. The authors have full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for its integrity and data analysis.