Suppr超能文献

中等血管闭塞再通的血管内装置选择与工具:来自MeVO FRONTIERS国际调查的见解

Endovascular Device Choice and Tools for Recanalization of Medium Vessel Occlusions: Insights From the MeVO FRONTIERS International Survey.

作者信息

Kashani Nima, Cimflova Petra, Ospel Johanna M, Singh Nishita, Almekhlafi Mohammed A, Rempel Jeremy, Fiehler Jens, Chen Michael, Sakai Nobuyuki, Agid Ronit, Heran Manraj, Kappelhof Manon, Goyal Mayank

机构信息

Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Foothills Medical Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Foothills Medical Center, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

出版信息

Front Neurol. 2021 Sep 15;12:735899. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.735899. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Endovascular treatment (EVT) for stroke due to medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) can be technically challenging. Devices and tools are rapidly evolving. We aimed to gain insight into preferences and global perspectives on the usage of endovascular tools in treating MeVOs. We conducted an international survey with seven scenarios of patients presenting A3, M2/3, M3, M3/4, or P2/3 occlusions. Respondents were asked for their preferred first-line endovascular approach, and whether they felt that the appropriate endovascular tools were available to them. Answers were analyzed by occlusion location and geographical region of practice, using multinomial/binary logistic regression. A total of 263 neurointerventionists provided 1836 responses. The first-line preferences of physicians were evenly distributed among stent-retrievers, combined approaches, and aspiration only (33.2, 29.8, and 26.8%, respectively). A3 occlusions were more often treated with stent-retrievers (RR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.07-1.36), while intra-arterial thrombolysis was more often preferred in M3 (RR 2.47, 95% CI: 1.53-3.98) and M3/4 occlusions (RR 7.71, 95% CI: 4.16-14.28) compared to M2/3 occlusions. Respondents who thought appropriate tools are currently not available more often chose stent retrievers alone (RR 2.07; 95% CI: 1.01-4.24) or intra-arterial thrombolysis (RR 3.35, 95% CI: 1.26-8.42). Physicians who stated that they do not have access to optimal tools opted more often not to treat at all (RR 3.41, 95% CI: 1.11-10.49). Stent-retrievers alone were chosen more often and contact aspiration alone less often as a first-line approach in Europe (RR 2.12, 95% CI: 1.38-3.24; and RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.70, respectively) compared to the United States and Canada. In EVT for MeVO strokes, neurointerventionalists choose a targeted vessel specific first-line approach depending on the occlusion location, region of practice, and availability of the appropriate tools.

摘要

对于因中型血管闭塞(MeVO)导致的中风,血管内治疗(EVT)在技术上可能具有挑战性。设备和工具正在迅速发展。我们旨在深入了解在治疗MeVO时血管内工具使用方面的偏好和全球观点。我们针对出现A3、M2/3、M3、M3/4或P2/3闭塞的患者的七种情况进行了一项国际调查。询问受访者他们首选的一线血管内治疗方法,以及他们是否认为自己能获得合适的血管内工具。使用多项/二元逻辑回归,根据闭塞位置和执业地理区域对答案进行分析。共有263名神经介入医生提供了1836份回复。医生的一线偏好均匀分布在取栓支架、联合治疗方法和单纯抽吸治疗之间(分别为33.2%、29.8%和26.8%)。与M2/3闭塞相比,A3闭塞更常采用取栓支架治疗(相对风险1.21,95%置信区间:1.07 - 1.36),而在M3(相对风险2.47,95%置信区间:1.53 - 3.98)和M3/4闭塞(相对风险7.71,95%置信区间:4.16 - 14.28)中,动脉内溶栓更常被首选。认为目前没有合适工具的受访者更常单独选择取栓支架(相对风险2.07;95%置信区间:1.01 - 4.24)或动脉内溶栓(相对风险3.35,95%置信区间:1.26 - 8.42)。表示无法获得最佳工具的医生更常选择根本不进行治疗(相对风险3.41,95%置信区间:1.11 - 10.49)。与美国和加拿大相比,在欧洲,单独选择取栓支架作为一线治疗方法的情况更常见,而单独选择接触抽吸的情况较少(相对风险分别为2.12,95%置信区间:1.38 -

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0000/8480153/166069dd6439/fneur-12-735899-g0001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验