Hill, Michael D

Background Since 2015, endovascular therapy has been established as a standard of care for acute stroke. This has caused major challenges regarding the organization of systems of care, which have to meet the increasing demand for thrombectomies. This study aims to evaluate how endovascular therapy decisions made by European and North American physicians under their current local resources differ from those made under assumed ideal conditions. Methods In an international, multidisciplinary survey, physicians involved in acute stroke care were asked to give their treatment decisions to 10 out of 22 randomly assigned stroke case-scenarios. Participants stated (a) their treatment approach under assumed ideal conditions (without any external limitations) and (b) the treatment they would pursue under their current local resources. Resources gaps (ideal minus current endovascular therapy rates) were calculated for different countries/states/provinces and correlated to economic and healthcare key metrics (gross domestic product-per-capita, public or private health insurance coverage, etc.). Results A total of 607 physicians, among them 218 from North America and 136 from 25 European countries, responded to the survey. Resources gaps in the majority of North American states/provinces and European countries were small (<5%). The highest gaps were observed among few European countries, namely Poland (30%) and the United Kingdom (33%). The magnitude of the resources gap did not correlate to national economic or healthcare metrics. Discussion and conclusion In the majority of North American states/provinces and European countries covered in this study, the discrepancy between endovascular therapy decisions under current local resources and assumed ideal conditions seems to be small, even in countries with a limited economic status and healthcare infrastructure.

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.

Background and purpose Thromboembolic events are recognized complications of aneurysm coiling. Objective To identify any protective effects of antiplatelet therapy use before coiling of unruptured aneurysms. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis of clinical studies published up to February 2019. We included studies reporting symptomatic thromboembolic events (defined as clinical stroke or transient ischemic attacks) in patients who received antiplatelet therapy before coiling of unruptured aneurysms using unassisted coiling, balloon assistance, or multiple microcatheters. We excluded ruptured aneurysms and those treated with stent coiling or flow diverters. Results We identified 14 studies (2486 patients). All were single-center studies and four were prospective. In three studies with a control (no treatment) arm, the pooled risk ratio for symptomatic thromboembolic events with versus without antiplatelet therapy was 0.33 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.92, p= 0.035). The cumulative risk of symptomatic thromboembolic events with single antiplatelet agents was 5.0% ‘56/1122’ (95% CI 1.6% to 8.4%, I283.63%), and with dual or multiple agents 2.7% ‘33/1237’ (95% CI 1.0% to 3.0%, I239.9%). The incidence of diffusion lesions was reported in seven studies. It was 50.5% ‘96/190’ (95% CI 7.3% to 93.9%, I294.4%) with single agents compared with 43.9% ‘196/446’ (95% CI 25.9% to 61.9%, I273.4%) with dual or multiple agents. Conclusion Periprocedural antiplatelet therapy was associated with a low symptomatic thromboembolic event after coiling-only for unruptured aneurysms. However, available evidence is of limited quality with significant heterogeneity, requiring evidence from randomized controlled trials.

Background and purpose Differences in the treatment practice of female and male physicians have been shown in several medical subspecialties. It is currently not known whether this also applies to endovascular stroke treatment. The purpose of this study was to explore whether there are differences in endovascular treatment decisions made by female and male stroke physicians and neurointerventionalists. Methods In an international survey, stroke physicians and neurointerventionalists were randomly assigned 10 case scenarios and asked how they would treat the patient: (A) assuming there were no external constraints and (B) given their local working conditions. Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline demographics, and the adjusted OR for physician gender as a predictor of endovascular treatment decision was calculated using logistic regression. Results 607 physicians (97 women, 508 men, 2 who did not wish to declare) participated in this survey. Physician gender was neither a significant predictor for endovascular treatment decision under assumed ideal conditions (endovascular therapy was favored by 77.0% of female and 79.3% of male physicians, adjusted OR 1.03, P=0.806) nor under current local resources (endovascular therapy was favored by 69.1% of female and 76.9% of male physicians, adjusted OR 1.03, P=0.814). Conclusion Endovascular therapy decision making between male and female physicians did not differ under assumed ideal conditions or under current local resources.

Background and Purpose— Little is known about the real-life factors that clinicians use in selection of patients that would receive endovascular treatment (EVT) in the real world. We sought to determine patient, practitioner, and health system factors associated with therapeutic decisions around endovascular treatment. Methods— We conducted a multinational cross-sectional web-based study comprising of 607 clinicians and interventionalists from 38 countries who are directly involved in acute stroke care. Participants were randomly allocated to 10 from a pool of 22 acute stroke case scenarios. Each case was classified as either Class I, Class II, or unknown evidence according to the current guidelines. We used logistic regression analysis applying weight of evidence approach. Main outcome measures were multilevel factors associated with EVT, adherence to current EVT guidelines, and practice gaps between current and ideal practice settings. Results— Of the 1330 invited participants, 607 (45.6%) participants completed the study (53.7% neurologists, 28.5% neurointerventional radiologists, 17.8% other clinicians). The weighed evidence approach revealed that National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (34.9%), level of evidence (30.2%), ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score) or ischemic core volume (22.4%), patient’s age (21.6%), and clinicians’ experience in EVT use (19.3%) are the most important factors for EVT decision. Of 2208 responses that met Class I evidence for EVT, 1917 (86.8%) were in favor of EVT. In case scenarios with no available guidelines, 1070 of 1380 (77.5%) responses favored EVT. Comparison between current and ideal practice settings revealed a small practice gap (941 of 6070 responses, 15.5%). Conclusions— In this large multinational survey, stroke severity, guideline-based level of evidence, baseline brain imaging, patients’ age and physicians’ experience were the most relevant factors for EVT decision-making. The high agreement between responses and Class I guideline recommendations and high EVT use even when guidelines were not available reflect the real-world acceptance of EVT as standard of care in patients with disabling acute ischemic stroke.

Background and Purpose— The ABC/2 score estimates intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume, yet validations have been limited by small samples and inappropriate outcome measures. We determined accuracy of the ABC/2 score calculated at a specialized reading center (RC-ABC) or local site (site-ABC) versus the reference-standard computed tomography–based planimetry (CTP). Methods— In Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Recombinant Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation-II (MISTIE-II), Clot Lysis Evaluation of Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage (CLEAR-IVH) and CLEAR-III trials. ICH volume was prospectively calculated by CTP, RC-ABC, and site-ABC. Agreement between CTP and ABC/2 was defined as an absolute difference up to 5 mL and relative difference within 20%. Determinants of ABC/2 accuracy were assessed by logistic regression. Results— In 4369 scans from 507 patients, CTP was more strongly correlated with RC-ABC ( r 2 =0.93) than with site-ABC ( r 2 =0.87). Although RC-ABC overestimated CTP-based volume on average (RC-ABC, 15.2 cm 3 ; CTP, 12.7 cm3), agreement was reasonable when categorized into mild, moderate, and severe ICH (κ=0.75; P <0.001). This was consistent with overestimation of ICH volume in 6 of 8 previous studies. Agreement with CTP was greater for RC-ABC (84% within 5 mL; 48% of scans within 20%) than for site-ABC (81% within 5 mL; 41% within 20%). RC-ABC had moderate accuracy for detecting ≥5 mL change in CTP volume between consecutive scans (sensitivity, 0.76; specificity, 0.86) and was more accurate with smaller ICH, thalamic hemorrhage, and homogeneous clots. Conclusions— ABC/2 scores at local or central sites are sufficiently accurate to categorize ICH volume and assess eligibility for the CLEAR-III and MISTIE III studies and moderately accurate for change in ICH volume. However, accuracy decreases with large, irregular, or lobar clots. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: MISTIE-II NCT00224770; CLEAR-III NCT00784134.

Background: With patients living a decade or longer post-procedure, long-term data are needed to assess the durability of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Identifying characteristics of those consenting or declining to continue in long-term follow-up may suggest strategies to improve retention in clinical trials. Purpose: This report describes differences between patients choosing or declining to continue follow-up for up to 10 years in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial. Methods: Following completion of the primary outcome, patients who were in active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial follow-up were asked to continue beyond their original 4-year commitment for a maximum of 10 years. The characteristics of those who consented were compared with those who declined. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used for analysis, and backwards stepwise logistic regression (the most parsimonious model) was used to determine the factors associated with continuation. Results: Of the 1921 active Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial participants for whom consent to extend follow-up was requested, 1695 (88%; mean age: 68.4) consented; 226 (12%; mean age: 69.6) declined. Of those who did not consent versus those who consented, 66% versus 48% were symptomatic at baseline (p < 0.0001), at follow-up 28% versus 20% were smokers (p = 0.009), 85% versus 90% were hypertensive (p = 0.01), and 84% versus 94% were dyslipidemic (p < 0.0001). Additional factors that differed between those who did not consent and those who consented included the mean number of years in the study at time of consent (4.8 years vs 3.7 years (p = <0.0001)) and patients from sites that enrolled <30 patients compared to sites randomizing 30 or more (70% vs 52% (p < 0.0001)). Multivariable logistic regression indicated that those with lesser odds of consenting to the extended follow-up were older (odds ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.67, 0.96), more likely to be symptomatic (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.42, 0.80), smokers (odds ratio: 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.34, 0.70), were in the study 5+ years versus <3 (odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.13, 0.34), and at a site that randomized <30 patients (odds ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval: 0.33, 0.63), while patients with dyslipidemia at follow-up had increased odds of consenting (odds ratio: 2.28 (1.47, 3.54)). Conclusion: Symptomatic status, increasing age, randomized at lower volume centers, and longer time in follow-up were associated with reduced odds of consenting to long-term follow-up. Identifying factors associated with reduced willingness to extend participation long-term can suggest targeted strategies to improve retention in future clinical trials.

Background— Stroke occurs more commonly after carotid artery stenting than after carotid endarterectomy. Details regarding stroke type, severity, and characteristics have not been reported previously. We describe the strokes that have occurred in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST). Methods and Results— CREST is a randomized, open-allocation, controlled trial with blinded end-point adjudication. Stroke was a component of the primary composite outcome. Patients who received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomization were included. Stroke was adjudicated by a panel of board-certified vascular neurologists with secondary central review of clinically obtained brain images. Stroke type, laterality, timing, and outcome were reported. A periprocedural stroke occurred among 81 of the 2502 patients randomized and among 69 of the 2272 in the present analysis. Strokes were predominantly minor (81%, n=56), ischemic (90%, n=62), in the anterior circulation (94%, n=65), and ipsilateral to the treated artery (88%, n=61). There were 7 hemorrhages, which occurred 3 to 21 days after the procedure, and 5 were fatal. Major stroke occurred in 13 (0.6%) of the 2272 patients. The estimated 4-year mortality after stroke was 21.1% compared with 11.6% for those without stroke. The adjusted risk of death at 4 years was higher after periprocedural stroke (hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.63–4.76). Conclusions— Stroke, particularly severe stroke, was uncommon after carotid intervention in CREST, but stroke was associated with significant morbidity and was independently associated with a nearly 3-fold increased future mortality. The delayed timing of major and hemorrhagic stroke after revascularization suggests that these strokes may be preventable. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Background— The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) found a higher risk of stroke after carotid artery stenting and a higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) after carotid endarterectomy. Methods and Results— Cardiac biomarkers and ECGs were performed before and 6 to 8 hours after either procedure and if there was clinical evidence of ischemia. In CREST, MI was defined as biomarker elevation plus either chest pain or ECG evidence of ischemia. An additional category of biomarker elevation with neither chest pain nor ECG abnormality was prespecified (biomarker+ only). Crude mortality and risk-adjusted mortality for MI and biomarker+ only were assessed during follow-up. Among 2502 patients, 14 MIs occurred in carotid artery stenting and 28 MIs in carotid endarterectomy (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.94; P =0.032) with a median biomarker ratio of 40 times the upper limit of normal. An additional 8 carotid artery stenting and 12 carotid endarterectomy patients had biomarker+ only (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 1.61; P =0.36), and their median biomarker ratio was 14 times the upper limit of normal. Compared with patients without biomarker elevation, mortality was higher over 4 years for those with MI (hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.67 to 6.92) or biomarker+ only (hazard ratio, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.46 to 8.68). After adjustment for baseline risk factors, both MI and biomarker+ only remained independently associated with increased mortality. Conclusions— In patients randomized to carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery stenting, both MI and biomarker+ only were more common with carotid endarterectomy. Although the levels of biomarker elevation were modest, both events were independently associated with increased future mortality and remain an important consideration in choosing the mode of carotid revascularization or medical therapy. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.