Patterns of Care in the Diagnosis and Management of Intracranial Atherosclerosis‐Related Large‐Vessel Occlusion: The Rescue‐LVO Survey

So your doctor knows nothing EXACT about how to treat this because the stroke medical world has INCOMPETENTLY FAILED AT CREATING EXACT PROTOCOLS FOR THIS! Good to know how fucking incompetent the stroke medical world is; so don't plan on having a stroke anytime soon!

Send me hate mail on this: oc1dean@gmail.com. I'll print your complete statement with name and my response in my blog.

Patterns of Care in the Diagnosis and Management of Intracranial Atherosclerosis‐Related Large‐Vessel Occlusion: The Rescue‐LVO Survey

Fazeel M. Siddiqui,

Jeffrey J. Fletcher,

Augusto E. Elias,

Sudeepta Dandapat,

Sushant P. Kale,

Daniel Heiferman,

Loren Riedy,

Mudassir Farooqui,

Aaron Rodriguez‐Calienes,

… See all authors

Originally published25 Jan 2024https://doi.org/10.1161/SVIN.123.001133Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology. 2024;4:e001133

• Other version(s) of this article

Abstract

Background

We aimed to determine the current practice patterns among neurointerventional practitioners frequently involved in treating intracranial atherosclerosis‐related large‐vessel occlusion (ICAS‐LVO) during mechanical thrombectomy.

Methods

We conducted an international online survey of neurointerventionalist members of the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology and Society of Neurointerventional Surgery. The 28‐question poll evaluated the preferences on diagnosis, treatment, and endovascular approach to ICAS‐LVO.

Results

A total of 184 individual survey responses were obtained from practicing neurointerventional physicians. Overall, 38.3% reported an incidence of 6% to 10% of ICAS‐LVO during mechanical thrombectomy. Most neurointerventionalists (91%) diagnose ICAS‐LVO after a continued or recurrent occlusion or by the presence of fixed focal stenosis after multiple mechanical thrombectomy attempts. Most respondents (86%) preferred acute treatment of ICAS‐LVO with rescue stenting (RS)±angioplasty. However, in patients who achieved recanalization with a severe fixed focal stenosis, most (58%) recommended primary medical management. The preferred medication during acute RS was intravenous antiplatelet therapy (65%), and after acute RS, it was dual oral antiplatelet therapy (65%). Fear of hemorrhagic complications (74%) was the most compelling reason not to perform RS±angioplasty. Of respondents, 24% were hesitant to randomize patients to acute RS versus medical therapy in a future randomized trial because of the lack of sensitive and specific biomarkers to diagnose ICAS‐LVO before mechanical thrombectomy treatment.

Conclusions

The findings of this survey highlight the variations in practice in the medical and endovascular management of ICAS‐LVO. In addition, it informs the situation of equipoise in the treatment decision in ICAS‐LVO, which can then be incorporated into the design of future randomized clinical trials.

Graphical Abstract

• Download figure