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

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endovascular Device Choice and Tools for Recanalization of Medium Vessel Occlusions: Insights From the MeVO FRONTIERS International Survey

AU - Kashani, Nima

AU - Cimflova, Petra

AU - Ospel, Johanna M

AU - Singh, Nishita

AU - Almekhlafi, Mohammed A

AU - Rempel, Jeremy

AU - Fiehler, Jens

AU - Chen, Michael

AU - Sakai, Nobuyuki

AU - Agid, Ronit

AU - Heran, Manraj

AU - Kappelhof, Manon

AU - Goyal, Mayank

N1 - Copyright © 2021 Kashani, Cimflova, Ospel, Singh, Almekhlafi, Rempel, Fiehler, Chen, Sakai, Agid, Heran, Kappelhof and Goyal.

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

AB - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

U2 - 10.3389/fneur.2021.735899

DO - 10.3389/fneur.2021.735899

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 34603187

VL - 12

JO - FRONT NEUROL

JF - FRONT NEUROL

SN - 1664-2295

M1 - 735899

ER -