Worldwide Survey on Approach to Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke With Large Vessel Occlusion.


Journal

Neurology. Clinical practice
ISSN: 2163-0402
Titre abrégé: Neurol Clin Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101577149

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 21 06 2023
accepted: 02 04 2024
pmc-release: 01 08 2025
medline: 12 6 2024
pubmed: 12 6 2024
entrez: 12 6 2024
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

With recent trials suggesting that endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone may be noninferior to combined intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with alteplase and EVT and that tenecteplase is non-inferior to alteplase in treating acute ischemic stroke, we sought to understand current practices around the world for treating acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion (LVO) depending on the center of practice (IVT-capable vs IVT and EVT-capable stroke center). The electronic survey launched by the Practice Current section of Neurology: Clinical Practice included 6 clinical and 8 demographic questions. A single-case scenario was presented of a 65-year-old man presenting with right hemiplegia with aphasia with a duration of 1 hour. Imaging showed left M1-MCA occlusion with no early ischemic changes. The respondents were asked about their treatment approach in 2 settings: the patient presented to (1) the IVT-only capable center and (2) the IVT and EVT-capable center. They were also asked about the thrombolytic agent of choice in current and ideal circumstances for these settings. A total of 203 physicians (42.9% vascular neurologists) from 44 countries completed the survey. Most participants (55.2%) spent ≥50% of their time delivering stroke care. The survey results showed that in current practice, more than 90% of respondents would offer IVT + EVT to patients with LVO stroke presenting to either an EVT-capable (91.1%) or IVT-only-capable center (93.6%). Although nearly 80% currently use alteplase for thrombolysis, around 60% would ideally like to switch to tenecteplase independent of the practice setting. These results were similar between stroke and non-stroke neurologists. Most physicians prefer IVT before EVT in patients with acute ischemic stroke attributable to large vessel occlusion independent of the practice setting.

Sections du résumé

Background and Objectives UNASSIGNED
With recent trials suggesting that endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone may be noninferior to combined intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) with alteplase and EVT and that tenecteplase is non-inferior to alteplase in treating acute ischemic stroke, we sought to understand current practices around the world for treating acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion (LVO) depending on the center of practice (IVT-capable vs IVT and EVT-capable stroke center).
Methods UNASSIGNED
The electronic survey launched by the Practice Current section of Neurology: Clinical Practice included 6 clinical and 8 demographic questions. A single-case scenario was presented of a 65-year-old man presenting with right hemiplegia with aphasia with a duration of 1 hour. Imaging showed left M1-MCA occlusion with no early ischemic changes. The respondents were asked about their treatment approach in 2 settings: the patient presented to (1) the IVT-only capable center and (2) the IVT and EVT-capable center. They were also asked about the thrombolytic agent of choice in current and ideal circumstances for these settings.
Results UNASSIGNED
A total of 203 physicians (42.9% vascular neurologists) from 44 countries completed the survey. Most participants (55.2%) spent ≥50% of their time delivering stroke care. The survey results showed that in current practice, more than 90% of respondents would offer IVT + EVT to patients with LVO stroke presenting to either an EVT-capable (91.1%) or IVT-only-capable center (93.6%). Although nearly 80% currently use alteplase for thrombolysis, around 60% would ideally like to switch to tenecteplase independent of the practice setting. These results were similar between stroke and non-stroke neurologists.
Discussion UNASSIGNED
Most physicians prefer IVT before EVT in patients with acute ischemic stroke attributable to large vessel occlusion independent of the practice setting.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38863660
doi: 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200317
pii: CPJ-2023-000280
pmc: PMC11164043
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e200317

Informations de copyright

© 2024 American Academy of Neurology.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors report no relevant disclosures. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.

Auteurs

Nishita Singh (N)

Department of Internal Medicine (NS), Neurology Division, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (NS, NK, AG), University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (NK), Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada; Division of Neurology (AGZV), Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC; and Kelowna General Hospital (AT), University of British Columbia, Canada.

Nima Kashani (N)

Department of Internal Medicine (NS), Neurology Division, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (NS, NK, AG), University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (NK), Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada; Division of Neurology (AGZV), Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC; and Kelowna General Hospital (AT), University of British Columbia, Canada.

Alonso G Zea Vera (AG)

Department of Internal Medicine (NS), Neurology Division, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (NS, NK, AG), University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (NK), Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada; Division of Neurology (AGZV), Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC; and Kelowna General Hospital (AT), University of British Columbia, Canada.

Aleksander Tkach (A)

Department of Internal Medicine (NS), Neurology Division, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (NS, NK, AG), University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (NK), Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada; Division of Neurology (AGZV), Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC; and Kelowna General Hospital (AT), University of British Columbia, Canada.

Aravind Ganesh (A)

Department of Internal Medicine (NS), Neurology Division, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (NS, NK, AG), University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology (NK), Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada; Division of Neurology (AGZV), Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC; and Kelowna General Hospital (AT), University of British Columbia, Canada.

Classifications MeSH