Management of covert brain infarction survey: A call to care for and trial this neglected population.
Covert brain infarction
covert cerebrovascular disease
silent brain infarction
silent cerebrovascular disease
survey
Journal
European stroke journal
ISSN: 2396-9881
Titre abrégé: Eur Stroke J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101688446
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
medline:
27
11
2023
pubmed:
10
7
2023
entrez:
10
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Covert brain infarction (CBI) is highly prevalent and linked with stroke risk factors, increased mortality, and morbidity. Evidence to guide management is sparse. We sought to gain information on current practice and attitudes toward CBI and to compare differences in management according to CBI phenotype. We conducted a web-based, structured, international survey from November 2021 to February 2022 among neurologists and neuroradiologists. The survey captured respondents' baseline characteristics, general approach toward CBI and included two case scenarios designed to evaluate management decisions taken upon incidental detection of an embolic-phenotype and a small-vessel-disease phenotype. Of 627 respondents (38% vascular neurologists, 24% general neurologists, and 26% neuroradiologists), 362 (58%) had a partial, and 305 (49%) a complete response. Most respondents were university hospital senior faculty members experienced in stroke, mostly from Europe and Asia. Only 66 (18%) of respondents had established institutional written protocols to manage CBI. The majority indicated that they were uncertain regarding useful investigations and further management of CBI patients (median 67 on a slider 0-100, 95% CI 35-81). Almost all respondents (97%) indicated that they would assess vascular risk factors. Although most would investigate and treat similarly to ischemic stroke for both phenotypes, including initiating antithrombotic treatment, there was considerable diagnostic and therapeutic heterogeneity. Less than half of respondents (42%) would assess cognitive function or depression. There is a high degree of uncertainty and heterogeneity regarding management of two common types of CBI, even among experienced stroke physicians. Respondents were more proactive regarding the diagnostic and therapeutic management than the minimum recommended by current expert opinions. More data are required to guide management of CBI; meantime, more consistent approaches to identification and consistent application of current knowledge, that also consider cognition and mood, would be promising first steps to improve consistency of care.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
UNASSIGNED
Covert brain infarction (CBI) is highly prevalent and linked with stroke risk factors, increased mortality, and morbidity. Evidence to guide management is sparse. We sought to gain information on current practice and attitudes toward CBI and to compare differences in management according to CBI phenotype.
METHODS
UNASSIGNED
We conducted a web-based, structured, international survey from November 2021 to February 2022 among neurologists and neuroradiologists. The survey captured respondents' baseline characteristics, general approach toward CBI and included two case scenarios designed to evaluate management decisions taken upon incidental detection of an embolic-phenotype and a small-vessel-disease phenotype.
RESULTS
UNASSIGNED
Of 627 respondents (38% vascular neurologists, 24% general neurologists, and 26% neuroradiologists), 362 (58%) had a partial, and 305 (49%) a complete response. Most respondents were university hospital senior faculty members experienced in stroke, mostly from Europe and Asia. Only 66 (18%) of respondents had established institutional written protocols to manage CBI. The majority indicated that they were uncertain regarding useful investigations and further management of CBI patients (median 67 on a slider 0-100, 95% CI 35-81). Almost all respondents (97%) indicated that they would assess vascular risk factors. Although most would investigate and treat similarly to ischemic stroke for both phenotypes, including initiating antithrombotic treatment, there was considerable diagnostic and therapeutic heterogeneity. Less than half of respondents (42%) would assess cognitive function or depression.
CONCLUSIONS
UNASSIGNED
There is a high degree of uncertainty and heterogeneity regarding management of two common types of CBI, even among experienced stroke physicians. Respondents were more proactive regarding the diagnostic and therapeutic management than the minimum recommended by current expert opinions. More data are required to guide management of CBI; meantime, more consistent approaches to identification and consistent application of current knowledge, that also consider cognition and mood, would be promising first steps to improve consistency of care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37427426
doi: 10.1177/23969873231187444
pmc: PMC10683731
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1079-1088Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Stroke. 2003 Feb;34(2):392-6
pubmed: 12574548
Eur Stroke J. 2021 Jun;6(2):IV
pubmed: 34414305
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jul 16;383(3):207-217
pubmed: 32668111
BMC Neurol. 2012 Feb 08;12:3
pubmed: 22315948
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 26;370(26):2478-86
pubmed: 24963567
JAMA Neurol. 2022 Nov 1;79(11):1187-1198
pubmed: 35969390
Stroke. 2008 Nov;39(11):2929-35
pubmed: 18583555
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 1;357(18):1821-8
pubmed: 17978290
Stroke. 1994 Apr;25(4):798-801
pubmed: 8160223
Lancet. 2015 Jun 6;385(9984):2255-63
pubmed: 25771249
J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Mar;5(1):1-5
pubmed: 24404217
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;76(1):81-94
pubmed: 30422209
Lancet Psychiatry. 2021 Mar;8(3):225-236
pubmed: 33539776
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2022 Mar;31(3):106279
pubmed: 35032758
JAMA. 2021 Jun 1;325(21):2169-2177
pubmed: 34061145
N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 14;377(11):1033-1042
pubmed: 28902580
N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 18;379(16):1519-1528
pubmed: 30221595
Neurology. 2021 Sep 28;97(13):e1313-e1321
pubmed: 34376505
Stroke. 1989 Jul;20(7):850-2
pubmed: 2749843
Neurology. 2005 Jun 28;64(12):2056-62
pubmed: 15985571
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 19;379(3):215-225
pubmed: 29766750
Lancet Neurol. 2021 Jun;20(6):426-436
pubmed: 34022169
Stroke. 1991 Nov;22(11):1379-83
pubmed: 1750045
PLoS One. 2018 May 16;13(5):e0197706
pubmed: 29768488
Lancet Neurol. 2007 Jul;6(7):611-9
pubmed: 17582361
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 2;382(1):9
pubmed: 31738483
N Engl J Med. 2003 Mar 27;348(13):1215-22
pubmed: 12660385
BMJ. 2002 Jan 12;324(7329):71-86
pubmed: 11786451
Neurology. 2019 Sep 10;93(11):e1058-e1067
pubmed: 31391244
Stroke. 2017 Feb;48(2):e44-e71
pubmed: 27980126
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2003;16(3):280-5
pubmed: 12865617
Neurology. 2020 Jul 21;95(3):e320-e331
pubmed: 32213642
BMC Neurol. 2021 May 11;21(1):189
pubmed: 33975556
N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 14;377(11):1022-1032
pubmed: 28902590
BMC Med. 2014 Jul 09;12:119
pubmed: 25012298
Stroke. 2020 Aug;51(8):2597-2606
pubmed: 32646332
JMIR Med Inform. 2019 Apr 21;7(2):e12109
pubmed: 31066686
Stroke Res Treat. 2018 Oct 03;2018:7532403
pubmed: 30402216
JAMA. 2019 Feb 12;321(6):553-561
pubmed: 30688979