scholarly journals Influence of Guidelines in Endovascular Therapy Decision Making in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Stroke ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 3578-3584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nima Kashani ◽  
Johanna M. Ospel ◽  
Bijoy K. Menon ◽  
Gustavo Saposnik ◽  
Mohammed Almekhlafi ◽  
...  

Background and Purpose— The American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association guidelines for early management of patients with ischemic stroke offer guidance to physicians involved in acute stroke care and clarify endovascular treatment indications. The purpose of this study was to assess concordance of physicians’ endovascular treatment decision-making with current American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association stroke treatment guidelines using a survey-approach and to explore how decision-making in the absence of guideline recommendations is approached. Methods— In an international cross-sectional survey (UNMASK-EVT), physicians were randomly assigned 10 of 22 case scenarios (8 constructed with level 1A and 11 with level 2B evidence for endovascular treatment and 3 scenarios without guideline coverage) and asked to declare their treatment approach (1) under their current local resources and (2) assuming there were no external constraints. The proportion of physicians offering endovascular therapy (EVT) was calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed for different specialties, geographic regions, with regard to physicians’ age, endovascular, and general stroke treatment experience. Results— When facing level 1A evidence, participants decided in favor of EVT in 86.8% under current local resources and in 90.6% under assumed ideal conditions, that is, 9.4% decided against EVT even under assumed ideal conditions. In case scenarios with level 2B evidence, 66.3% decided to proceed with EVT under current local resources and 69.7% under assumed ideal conditions. Conclusions— There is potential for improving thinking around the decision to offer endovascular treatment, since physicians did not offer EVT even under assumed ideal conditions in 9.4% despite facing level 1A evidence. A majority of physicians would offer EVT even for level 2B evidence cases.

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna M Ospel ◽  
Nima Kashani ◽  
Bijoy Menon ◽  
Mohammed Almekhlafi ◽  
Ravinder Singh ◽  
...  

Background and Purpose: Current AHA/ASA guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke restrict level 1A recommendations for endovascular therapy (EVT) to patients with baseline ASPECTS score >5. However, a recent meta-analysis from the HERMES group showed a treatment benefit in patients with ASPECTS ≤5. We aimed to explore how physicians across different specialties and countries approach endovascular treatment decision-making in acute ischemic stroke patients with low baseline ASPECTS. Methods: In an international multidisciplinary survey, 607 physicians involved in acute stroke care were randomly assigned 10 out of a pool of 22 case-scenarios, 3 of which involved patients with baseline ASPECTS < 6 (A: 40-year old with ASPECTS 4, B: 33-year old with ASPECTS 2 C: 72-year old with ASPECTS 3), otherwise fulfilling all EVT-eligibility criteria. Participants were asked how they would treat the patient in the given scenario A) under their current local resources and B) under assumed ideal conditions, i.e. without any external (monetary, policy-related or infrastructural) restraints. Overall and scenario-specific decision rates were calculated. Clustered multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine variables associated with EVT decision in patients with low baseline ASPECTS. Results: 827/6070 responses were available for the low ASPECTS scenarios. Current and ideal treatment EVT decision rates were 57.1% and 57.6% respectively. Current and ideal decision rates were 69.9% and 60.4% for scenario A, 60.0% and 61.5% for scenario B, 41.3% and 40.2% for scenario C respectively. Annual center EVT volume (OR 1.004,p=.004), annual operator EVT volume (OR 1.009, p=.018) and time since symptom onset (OR 4.543,p<.001) were significantly associated with EVT decision-making under current local resources, while annual operator EVT volume (OR 1.007,p<.029) and time since symptom onset (OR 5.687,p<.001) were associated with decision-making under assumed ideal conditions. Conclusion: A majority of physicians decided to proceed with EVT despite low baseline ASPECTS. Operators and centers doing more EVT per year were more likely to offer EVT to patients with low ASPECTS.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document