M Almekhlafi1,2,3, J M Ospel1,4, G Saposnik5,6, N Kashani2, A Demchuk1,2, M D Hill1,2,3, M Goyal1,2, B K Menon7,2,3. 1. From the Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.A., J.M.O., A.D., M.D.H., M.G., B.K.M.), Hotchkiss Brain Institute. 2. and Departments of Radiology (M.A., N.K., A.D., M.D.H., M.G., B.K.M.) and. 3. Community Health Sciences (M.A., M.D.H., B.K.M.), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Department of Radiology (J.M.O.), University Hospital Basel, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 5. and Stroke Outcomes and Decision Neuroscience Research Unit (G.S.), Department of Medicine. 6. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (G.S.), St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. From the Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.A., J.M.O., A.D., M.D.H., M.G., B.K.M.), Hotchkiss Brain Institute docbijoymenon@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular therapy in acute ischemic stroke is rapidly evolving. We explored physicians' treatment attitudes and practice in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to M2 occlusion, given the absence of Level-1 guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an international multidisciplinary survey among physicians involved in acute stroke care. Respondents were presented with 10 of 22 case scenarios (4 with proximal M2 occlusions and 1 with a small-branch M2 occlusion) and asked about their treatment approach under A) current local resources, and B) assumed ideal conditions (no monetary or infrastructural restraints). Overall treatment decisions were evaluated; subgroup analyses by physician and patient baseline characteristics were performed. RESULTS: A total of 607 physicians participated. Most of the respondents decided in favor of endovascular therapy in M2 occlusions, both under current local resources and assumed ideal conditions (65.4% versus 69.6%; P = .017). Under current local resources, older patient age (P < .001), longer time since symptom onset (P < .001), high center endovascular therapy volume (P < .001), high personal endovascular therapy volume (P = .005), and neurosurgeons (P < .001) were more likely to favor endovascular therapy. European respondents were less likely to favor endovascular therapy (P = .001). Under assumed ideal conditions, older patient age (P < .001), longer time since symptom onset (P < .001), high center endovascular therapy volume (P = .041), high personal endovascular therapy volume (P = .002), and Asian respondents were more likely to favor endovascular therapy (P = .037). Respondents with more experience (P = .048) and high annual stroke thrombolysis treatment volume (P = .001) were less likely to favor endovascular therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with M2 occlusions are considered appropriate candidates for endovascular therapy by most respondents in this survey, especially by those performing endovascular therapy more often and those practicing in high-volume centers.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular therapy in acute ischemic stroke is rapidly evolving. We explored physicians' treatment attitudes and practice in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to M2 occlusion, given the absence of Level-1 guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an international multidisciplinary survey among physicians involved in acute stroke care. Respondents were presented with 10 of 22 case scenarios (4 with proximal M2 occlusions and 1 with a small-branch M2 occlusion) and asked about their treatment approach under A) current local resources, and B) assumed ideal conditions (no monetary or infrastructural restraints). Overall treatment decisions were evaluated; subgroup analyses by physician and patient baseline characteristics were performed. RESULTS: A total of 607 physicians participated. Most of the respondents decided in favor of endovascular therapy in M2 occlusions, both under current local resources and assumed ideal conditions (65.4% versus 69.6%; P = .017). Under current local resources, older patient age (P < .001), longer time since symptom onset (P < .001), high center endovascular therapy volume (P < .001), high personal endovascular therapy volume (P = .005), and neurosurgeons (P < .001) were more likely to favor endovascular therapy. European respondents were less likely to favor endovascular therapy (P = .001). Under assumed ideal conditions, older patient age (P < .001), longer time since symptom onset (P < .001), high center endovascular therapy volume (P = .041), high personal endovascular therapy volume (P = .002), and Asian respondents were more likely to favor endovascular therapy (P = .037). Respondents with more experience (P = .048) and high annual stroke thrombolysis treatment volume (P = .001) were less likely to favor endovascular therapy. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with M2 occlusions are considered appropriate candidates for endovascular therapy by most respondents in this survey, especially by those performing endovascular therapy more often and those practicing in high-volume centers.
Authors: Bijoy K Menon; Michael D Hill; Antoni Davalos; Yvo B W E M Roos; Bruce C V Campbell; Diederik W J Dippel; Francis Guillemin; Jeffrey L Saver; Aad van der Lugt; Andrew M Demchuk; Keith Muir; Scott Brown; Tudor Jovin; Peter Mitchell; Phil White; Serge Bracard; Mayank Goyal Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Jonathan A Grossberg; Leticia C Rebello; Diogo C Haussen; Mehdi Bouslama; Meredith Bowen; Clara M Barreira; Samir R Belagaje; Michael R Frankel; Raul G Nogueira Journal: Stroke Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: J M Coutinho; D S Liebeskind; L-A Slater; R G Nogueira; B W Baxter; E I Levy; A H Siddiqui; M Goyal; O O Zaidat; A Davalos; A Bonafé; R Jahan; J Gralla; J L Saver; V M Pereira Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Sunil A Sheth; Bryan Yoo; Jeffrey L Saver; Sidney Starkman; Latisha K Ali; Doojin Kim; Nestor R Gonzalez; Reza Jahan; Satoshi Tateshima; Gary Duckwiler; Fernando Vinuela; David S Liebeskind Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Bijoy K Menon; Fahad S Al-Ajlan; Mohamed Najm; Josep Puig; Mar Castellanos; Dar Dowlatshahi; Ana Calleja; Sung-Il Sohn; Seong H Ahn; Alex Poppe; Robert Mikulik; Negar Asdaghi; Thalia S Field; Albert Jin; Talip Asil; Jean-Martin Boulanger; Eric E Smith; Shelagh B Coutts; Phil A Barber; Simerpreet Bal; Suresh Subramanian; Sachin Mishra; Anurag Trivedi; Sadanand Dey; Muneer Eesa; Tolulope Sajobi; Mayank Goyal; Michael D Hill; Andrew M Demchuk Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ansaar T Rai; Jennifer R Domico; Chelsea Buseman; Abdul R Tarabishy; Daniel Fulks; Noelle Lucke-Wold; SoHyun Boo; Jeffrey S Carpenter Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: J M Ospel; F Bala; R V McDonough; O Volny; N Kashani; W Qiu; B K Menon; M Goyal Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D Y Kim; S H Baik; C Jung; J Y Kim; S-G Han; B J Kim; J Kang; H-J Bae; J H Kim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: A Yahav-Dovrat; G Merhav; A Eran; R Sivan-Hoffmann; M Saban; E Abergel; D Tanne; R G Nogueira Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Manon Kappelhof; Johanna Ospel; Nima Kashani; Petra Cimflova; Nishita Singh; Mohammed A Almekhlafi; Bijoy K Menon; Jens Fiehler; Michael Chen; Nobuyuki Sakai; Mayank Goyal Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 8.572