From the Department of Radiology (N.K., J.M.O., B.K.M., M.A., M.D.H., M.G.), University of Calgary, AB, Canada.
Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Switzerland (J.M.O.).
Stroke. 2019 Dec;50(12):3578-3584. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.026982. Epub 2019 Nov 5.
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.
背景与目的- 美国心脏协会和美国中风协会的缺血性脑卒中早期管理指南为参与急性脑卒中治疗的医生提供了指导,并阐明了血管内治疗的适应证。本研究的目的是通过调查方法评估医生的血管内治疗决策与当前美国心脏协会和美国中风协会中风治疗指南的一致性,并探讨在没有指南推荐的情况下如何进行决策。方法- 在一项国际横断面调查(UNMASK-EVT)中,医生随机分配了 10 个 22 个病例场景中的场景(8 个基于血管内治疗的 1A 级证据和 11 个 2B 级证据,以及 3 个没有指南涵盖的场景),并被要求宣布他们的治疗方法(1)根据他们目前的当地资源,以及(2)假设没有外部限制。计算了提供血管内治疗(EVT)的医生的比例。进行了亚组分析,针对不同的专业、地理区域、医生的年龄、血管内和一般中风治疗经验。结果- 当面对 1A 级证据时,参与者在当前的当地资源下有 86.8%决定进行 EVT,在假设的理想条件下有 90.6%决定进行 EVT,即在假设的理想条件下,仍有 9.4%的人决定不进行 EVT。在 2B 级证据的病例场景中,66.3%的人决定在当前的当地资源下进行 EVT,69.7%的人决定在假设的理想条件下进行 EVT。结论- 在决定是否提供血管内治疗方面,仍有改进思维的空间,因为尽管面对 1A 级证据,但仍有 9.4%的医生在假设的理想条件下不提供 EVT。大多数医生甚至会对 2B 级证据的病例提供 EVT。