I dont exactly agree with what @Silky84 has said, but might further clarify that the functional outcomes that are achieved via any method of stroke treatment (thrombolysis or clot busters Vs thrombectomy) are more dependant on 'time to treatment'. Regardless of opinions on treatments, we can all agree on time equalling functional tissue.
It is correct to say that this technology could have some say in that department. HOWEVER. I dont see this reinventing the treatment cascade anytime soon. Consider that this trial is occurring in the hospital, i.e the patients are already in hospital with their symptoms. It is a phase 1 trial really just aiming to prove the method of scanning is not INFERIOR to a conventional CT or MRI. In essence, the sole goal of these initial scans are to determine 1: are these symptoms actually caused by a stroke and 2: is the stroke embolic (clot) or haemorrhagic (bleed).
I dont have the data to back this up, but I was a Paramedic in a past life and feel that it is fair to say most, if not all patients who have an acute, i.e treatable stroke arrive at hospital via ambulance. In the past I have written that I would avoid investing in this company with the longest pole I could find, based on information at the time that the clinical trials would be run with NSW Ambulance service. I said this because I know the logistic hurdles and government red tape that would be involved.
Now sure, further down the road, if this tech was proven to be non-inferior to conventional imaging in regards to quality AND time to acquisition of image. Then there could be a compelling arguement to put one of these scanners in the back of an ambulance, and recognise TREATABLE strokes earlier, and expedite that patient to a hospital that has the facilities to provide that treatment.
Consider an example where perhaps a patient is taken to a hospital that does not provide these treatments who could instead be identified sooner and just taken directly to the best place. In Sydney, as a general rule any patient who presents with 'stroke like' symptoms within 4-6 hours will be taken (by ambulance) to one of the big 5 or 6 hospital that do currently do this. So another consideration would be 'does the time taken to acquire the image in an ambulance actuallly change the destination', or furthermore, does it change the 'time to treatment'? Personally, I would argue that in a metropolitan area this would not be the case. The next step to that line of thought would be 'what about regional and rural?'. For example an area like Lithgow or semi urban. This WOULD make a difference (if the tech and time to acquisition was proven non inferior).
I am still steering well wide of this from an investment point of view, but to answer all the above questions + the nuance and all the other things I havn't considered I would say would take a minimum of 5-8 years. Trials, phase 1, 2 + 3 including data saturation and proving benefits against conventional CT..... Any doctor in this chat can attest to how freaking fast a CT is these days, at least in the ones I have been involved in from my Paramedic days where we would call ahead and would transfer from the ambulance bed to the CT scanner, hit the button and the radiologist would give a verbal report on 'clot vs bleed' on the spot. Pretty cool, also pretty hard to disrupt.
