Perceived Limits of Endovascular Treatment for Secondary Medium-Vessel-Occlusion Stroke.
Journal
AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology
ISSN: 1936-959X
Titre abrégé: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2021
12 2021
Historique:
received:
02
06
2021
accepted:
18
08
2021
pubmed:
30
10
2021
medline:
3
3
2022
entrez:
29
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Thrombus embolization during mechanical thrombectomy occurs in up to 9% of cases, making secondary medium vessel occlusions of particular interest to neurointerventionalists. We sought to gain insight into the current endovascular treatment approaches for secondary medium vessel occlusion stroke in an international case-based survey because there are currently no clear recommendations for endovascular treatment in these patients. Survey participants were presented with 3 cases involving secondary medium vessel occlusions, each consisting of 3 case vignettes with changes in the patient's neurologic status (improvement, no change, unable to assess). Multivariable logistic regression analyses clustered by the respondent's identity were used to assess factors influencing the decision to treat. In total, 366 physicians (56 women, 308 men, 2 undisclosed) from 44 countries provided 3294 responses to 9 scenarios. Most (54.1%, 1782/3294) were in favor of endovascular treatment. Participants were more likely to treat occlusions in the anterior M2/3 (74.3%; risk ratio = 2.62; 95% CI, 2.27-3.03) or A3 (59.7%; risk ratio = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.83-2.42) segment compared with the M3/4 segment (28.3%; reference). Physicians were less likely to pursue endovascular treatment in patients who showed neurologic improvement than in patients with an unchanged neurologic deficit (49.9% versus 57.0% responses in favor of endovascular treatment, respectively; risk ratio = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.83-0.92). Interventionalists and more experienced physicians were more likely to treat secondary medium vessel occlusions. Physicians' willingness to treat secondary medium vessel occlusions endovascularly is limited and varies per occlusion location and change in neurologic status. More evidence on the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment for secondary medium vessel occlusion stroke is needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Thrombus embolization during mechanical thrombectomy occurs in up to 9% of cases, making secondary medium vessel occlusions of particular interest to neurointerventionalists. We sought to gain insight into the current endovascular treatment approaches for secondary medium vessel occlusion stroke in an international case-based survey because there are currently no clear recommendations for endovascular treatment in these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Survey participants were presented with 3 cases involving secondary medium vessel occlusions, each consisting of 3 case vignettes with changes in the patient's neurologic status (improvement, no change, unable to assess). Multivariable logistic regression analyses clustered by the respondent's identity were used to assess factors influencing the decision to treat.
RESULTS
In total, 366 physicians (56 women, 308 men, 2 undisclosed) from 44 countries provided 3294 responses to 9 scenarios. Most (54.1%, 1782/3294) were in favor of endovascular treatment. Participants were more likely to treat occlusions in the anterior M2/3 (74.3%; risk ratio = 2.62; 95% CI, 2.27-3.03) or A3 (59.7%; risk ratio = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.83-2.42) segment compared with the M3/4 segment (28.3%; reference). Physicians were less likely to pursue endovascular treatment in patients who showed neurologic improvement than in patients with an unchanged neurologic deficit (49.9% versus 57.0% responses in favor of endovascular treatment, respectively; risk ratio = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.83-0.92). Interventionalists and more experienced physicians were more likely to treat secondary medium vessel occlusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Physicians' willingness to treat secondary medium vessel occlusions endovascularly is limited and varies per occlusion location and change in neurologic status. More evidence on the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment for secondary medium vessel occlusion stroke is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34711552
pii: ajnr.A7327
doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7327
pmc: PMC8805763
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2188-2193Informations de copyright
© 2021 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.
Références
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Jul;13(7):623-630
pubmed: 33637570
J Neuroimaging. 2018 Jul;28(4):412-415
pubmed: 29655219
Stroke. 2020 Nov;51(11):3232-3240
pubmed: 33070714
Stroke. 2021 Mar;52(3):1147-1153
pubmed: 33467882
Interv Neurol. 2020 Jan;8(2-6):206-214
pubmed: 32508903
J Neurointerv Surg. 2020 Jun;12(6):545-547
pubmed: 32060151
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Dec;13(12):1067-1072
pubmed: 33468609
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Stroke. 2019 Nov;50(11):3156-3163
pubmed: 31597552
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Aug;13(8):768
pubmed: 33372008
Stroke. 2020 Sep;51(9):2872-2884
pubmed: 32757757
Stroke. 2021 Jan;52(2):482-490
pubmed: 33467875
Stroke. 2018 Jul;49(7):1662-1668
pubmed: 29915125