| 1. |
- Nordanstig, Annika, 1974, et al.
(author)
-
EndoVAscular treatment and ThRombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Patients (EVA-TRISP) registry: basis and methodology of a pan-European prospective ischaemic stroke revascularisation treatment registry.
- 2021
-
In: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 11:8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Thrombolysis in Ischemic Stroke Patients (TRISP) collaboration was a concerted effort initiated in 2010 with the purpose to address relevant research questions about the effectiveness and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). The collaboration also aims to prospectively collect data on patients undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) and hence the name of the collaboration was changed from TRISP to EVA-TRISP. The methodology of the former TRISP registry for patients treated with IVT has already been published. This paper focuses on describing the EVT part of the registry.All centres committed to collecting predefined variables on consecutive patients prospectively. We aim for accuracy and completeness of the data and to adapt local databases to investigate novel research questions. Herein, we introduce the methodology of a recently constructed academic investigator-initiated open collaboration EVT registry built as an extension of an existing IVT registry in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS).Currently, the EVA-TRISP network includes 20 stroke centres with considerable expertise in EVT and maintenance of high-quality hospital-based registries. Following several successful randomised controlled trials (RCTs), many important clinical questions remain unanswered in the (EVT) field and some of them will unlikely be investigated in future RCTs. Prospective registries with high-quality data on EVT-treated patients may help answering some of these unanswered issues, especially on safety and efficacy of EVT in specific patient subgroups.This collaborative effort aims at addressing clinically important questions on safety and efficacy of EVT in conditions not covered by RCTs. The TRISP registry generated substantial novel data supporting stroke physicians in their daily decision making considering IVT candidate patients. While providing observational data on EVT in daily clinical practice, our future findings may likewise be hypothesis generating for future research as well as for quality improvement (on EVT). The collaboration welcomes participation of further centres willing to fulfill the commitment and the outlined requirements.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ospel, Johanna M., et al.
(author)
-
What is a Challenging Clot? : A DELPHI Consensus Statement from the CLOTS 7.0 Summit
- 2023
-
In: Clinical Neuroradiology. - 1869-1439 .- 1869-1447. ; 33:4, s. 1007-1016
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Predicting a challenging clot when performing mechanical thrombectomy in acute stroke can be difficult. One reason for this difficulty is a lack of agreement on how to precisely define these clots. We explored the opinions of stroke thrombectomy and clot research experts regarding challenging clots, defined as difficult to recanalize clots by endovascular approaches, and clot/patient features that may be indicative of such clots. Methods: A modified DELPHI technique was used before and during the CLOTS 7.0 Summit, which included experts in thrombectomy and clot research from different specialties. The first round included open-ended questions and the second and final rounds each consisted of 30 closed-ended questions, 29 on various clinical and clot features, and 1 on number of passes before switching techniques. Consensus was defined as agreement ≥ 50%. Features with consensus and rated ≥ 3 out of 4 on the certainty scale were included in the definition of a challenging clot. Results: Three DELPHI rounds were performed. Panelists achieved consensus on 16/30 questions, of which 8 were rated 3 or 4 on the certainty scale, namely white-colored clots (mean certainty score 3.1), calcified clots under histology (3.7) and imaging (3.7), stiff clots (3.0), sticky/adherent clots (3.1), hard clots (3.1), difficult to pass clots (3.1) and clots that are resistant to pulling (3.0). Most panelists considered switching endovascular treatment (EVT) techniques after 2–3 unsuccessful attempts. Conclusion: This DELPHI consensus identified 8 distinct features of a challenging clot. The varying degree of certainty amongst the panelists emphasizes the need for more pragmatic studies to enable accurate a priori identification of such occlusions prior to EVT.
|
|
| 3. |
- Putora, Paul Martin, et al.
(author)
-
Diagnostic imaging strategies of acute intracerebral hemorrhage in European academic hospitals—a decision-making analysis
- 2023
-
In: Neuroradiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-3940 .- 1432-1920. ; 65:4, s. 729-736
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate and compare which factors are relevant to the diagnostic decision-making and imaging workup of intracerebral hemorrhages in large, specialized European centers. Methods: Expert neuroradiologists from ten large, specialized centers (where endovascular stroke treatment is routinely performed) in nine European countries were selected in cooperation with the European Society of Neuroradiology (ESNR). The experts were asked to describe how and when they would investigate specific causes in a patient who presented with an acute, atraumatic, intracerebral hemorrhage for two given locations: (1) basal ganglia, thalamus, pons or cerebellum; (2) lobar hemorrhage. Answers were collected, and decision trees were compared. Results: Criteria that were considered relevant for decision-making reflect recommendations from current guidelines and were similar in all participating centers. CT Angiography or MR angiography was considered essential by the majority of centers regardless of other factors. Imaging in clinical practice tended to surpass guideline recommendations and was heterogeneous among different centers, e.g., in a scenario suggestive of typical hypertensive hemorrhage, recommendations ranged from no further follow-up imaging to CT angiography and MR angiography. In no case was a consensus above 60% achieved. Conclusion: In European clinical practices, existing guidelines for diagnostic imaging strategies in ICH evaluation are followed as a basis but in most cases, additional imaging investigation is undertaken. Significant differences in imaging workup were observed among the centers. Results suggest a high level of awareness and caution regarding potentially underlying pathology other than hypertensive disease.
|
|
| 4. |
- Schönenberger, Silvia, et al.
(author)
-
Association of General Anesthesia vs Procedural Sedation With Functional Outcome Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
- 2019
-
In: JAMA. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 1538-3598 .- 0098-7484. ; 322:13, s. 1283-1293
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- General anesthesia during thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke has been associated with poor neurological outcome in nonrandomized studies. Three single-center randomized trials reported no significantly different or improved outcomes for patients who received general anesthesia compared with procedural sedation.To detect differences in functional outcome at 3 months between patients who received general anesthesia vs procedural sedation during thrombectomy for anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke.MEDLINE search for English-language articles published from January 1, 1980, to July 31, 2019.Randomized clinical trials of adults with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of at least 10 and anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke assigned to receive general anesthesia or procedural sedation during thrombectomy.Individual patient data were obtained from 3 single-center, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trials with blinded end point evaluation that met inclusion criteria and were analyzed using fixed-effects meta-analysis.Degree of disability, measured via the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range 0-6; lower scores indicate less disability), analyzed with the common odds ratio (cOR) to detect the ordinal shift in the distribution of disability over the range of mRS scores.A total of 368 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.5 [12.9] years; 163 [44.3%] women; median [interquartile range] National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 17 [14-21]) were included in the analysis, including 183 (49.7%) who received general anesthesia and 185 (50.3%) who received procedural sedation. The mean 3-month mRS score was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.5-3.1) in the general anesthesia group vs 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.5) in the procedural sedation group (difference, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.03-0.83]; cOR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.09-2.29]; P=.02). Among prespecified adverse events, only hypotension (decline in systolic blood pressure of more than 20% from baseline) (80.8% vs 53.1%; OR, 4.26 [95% CI, 2.55-7.09]; P<.001) and blood pressure variability (systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg or <120 mm Hg) (79.7 vs 62.3%; OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.49-3.93]; P<.001) were significantly more common in the general anesthesia group.Among patients with acute ischemic stroke involving the anterior circulation undergoing thrombectomy, the use of protocol-based general anesthesia, compared with procedural sedation, was significantly associated with less disability at 3 months. These findings should be interpreted tentatively, given that the individual trials examined were single-center trials and disability was the primary outcome in only 1 trial.
|
|
