Citations

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 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— Mechanical thrombectomy has been shown to improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke. However, the impact of balloon guide catheter (BGC) use is not well established. Methods— STRATIS (Systematic Evaluation of Patients Treated With Neurothrombectomy Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke) was a prospective, multicenter study of patients with large vessel occlusion treated with the Solitaire stent retriever as first-line therapy. In this study, an independent core laboratory, blinded to the clinical outcomes, reviewed all procedures and angiographic data to classify procedural technique, target clot location, recanalization after each pass, and determine the number of stent retriever passes. The primary clinical end point was functional independence (modified Rankin Scale, 0–2) at 3 months as determined on-site, and the angiographic end point was first-pass effect (FPE) success rate from a single device attempt (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction, ≥2c) as determined by a core laboratory. Achieving modified FPE (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction, ≥2b) was also assessed. Comparisons of clinical outcomes were made between groups and adjusted for baseline and procedural characteristics. All participating centers received institutional review board approval from their respective institutions. Results— Adjunctive technique groups included BGC (n=445), distal access catheter (n=238), and conventional guide catheter (n=62). The BGC group had a higher rate of FPE following first pass (212/443 [48%]) versus conventional guide catheter (16/62 [26%]; P =0.001) and distal access catheter (83/235 [35%]; P =0.002). Similarly, the BGC group had a higher rate of modified FPE (294/443 [66%]) versus conventional guide catheter (26/62 [42%]; P <0.001) and distal access catheter (129/234 [55%]; P =0.003). The BGC group achieved the highest rate of functional independence (253/415 [61%]) versus conventional guide catheter (23/55 [42%]; P =0.007) and distal access catheter (113/218 [52%]; P =0.027). Final revascularization and mortality rates did not differ across the groups. Conclusions— BGC use was an independent predictor of FPE, modified FPE, and functional independence, suggesting that its routine use may improve the rates of early revascularization success and good clinical outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02239640.

Background: Endovascular treatment with mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is beneficial for patients with acute stroke suffering a large-vessel occlusion, although treatment efficacy is highly time-dependent. We hypothesized that interhospital transfer to endovascular-capable centers would result in treatment delays and worse clinical outcomes compared with direct presentation. Methods: STRATIS (Systematic Evaluation of Patients Treated With Neurothrombectomy Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke) was a prospective, multicenter, observational, single-arm study of real-world MT for acute stroke because of anterior-circulation large-vessel occlusion performed at 55 sites over 2 years, including 1000 patients with severe stroke and treated within 8 hours. Patients underwent MT with or without intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and were admitted to endovascular-capable centers via either interhospital transfer or direct presentation. The primary clinical outcome was functional independence (modified Rankin Score 0–2) at 90 days. We assessed (1) real-world time metrics of stroke care delivery, (2) outcome differences between direct and transfer patients undergoing MT, and (3) the potential impact of local hospital bypass. Results: A total of 984 patients were analyzed. Median onset-to-revascularization time was 202.0 minutes for direct versus 311.5 minutes for transfer patients ( P <0.001). Clinical outcomes were better in the direct group, with 60.0% (299/498) achieving functional independence compared with 52.2% (213/408) in the transfer group (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–1.79; P =0.02). Likewise, excellent outcome (modified Rankin Score 0–1) was achieved in 47.4% (236/498) of direct patients versus 38.0% (155/408) of transfer patients (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–1.92; P =0.005). Mortality did not differ between the 2 groups (15.1% for direct, 13.7% for transfer; P =0.55). Intravenous tissue plasminogen activator did not impact outcomes. Hypothetical bypass modeling for all transferred patients suggested that intravenous tissue plasminogen activator would be delayed by 12 minutes, but MT would be performed 91 minutes sooner if patients were routed directly to endovascular-capable centers. If bypass is limited to a 20-mile radius from onset, then intravenous tissue plasminogen activator would be delayed by 7 minutes and MT performed 94 minutes earlier. Conclusions: In this large, real-world study, interhospital transfer was associated with significant treatment delays and lower chance of good outcome. Strategies to facilitate more rapid identification of large-vessel occlusion and direct routing to endovascular-capable centers for patients with severe stroke may improve outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02239640.

Limited data exist on clot composition and detailed characteristics of arterial thrombi associated with large vessel occlusion in acute ischemic stroke. Advances in endovascular thrombectomy and related imaging modalities have created a unique opportunity to analyze thrombi removed from cerebral arteries. Insights into thrombus composition, etiology, physical properties and neurovascular interactions may lead to future advancements in acute ischemic stroke treatment and improved clinical outcomes. Advances in imaging techniques may enhance clot characterization and inform therapeutic decision-making prior to treatment and reveal stroke etiology to guide secondary prevention. Current imaging techniques can provide some information about thrombi, but there remains much to evaluate about relationships that may exist among thrombus composition, occlusion characteristics and treatment outcomes. Improved pathophysiological characterization of clot types, their properties and how these properties change over time, together with clinical correlates from ongoing studies, may facilitate revascularization with thrombolysis and thrombectomy. Interdisciplinary approaches covering clinical, engineering and scientific aspects of thrombus research will be key to advancing the understanding of thrombi and improving acute ischemic stroke therapy. This consensus statement integrates recent research on clots and thrombi retrieved from cerebral arteries and provides a rationale for further analyses, including current opportunities and limitations.