Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Stroke is ascendant: is it time for TICI to be more than just a score?
  1. Joshua A Hirsch1,
  2. Guido J Falcone2,
  3. Allan L Brook3,
  4. David Fiorella4,
  5. R Gilberto Gonzalez5,
  6. Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi6
  1. 1Neuroendovascular Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2Division of Neurocritical Care and Emergency Neurology, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3Interventional Neuroradiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, USA
  4. 4Department of Neurosurgery, Cerebrovascular Center, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, New York, USA
  5. 5Division of Neuroradiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  6. 6Neuroendovascular Service, Neurologic Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joshua A Hirsch, Neuroendovascular Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA; Hirsch{at}snisonline.org

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Introduction

The neurointerventional (NI) endeavor is a field of marked contrasts. Complex intracranial aneurysms, disabling strokes, and a variety of other neurovascular diseases are successfully treated through minimally invasive means. The technical and geographic growth of the field has seen a similar maturation in academic support and its resultant data. In that vein, over these past few decades single-center case series have been replaced by larger multicenter observational cohorts and ultimately by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). One of the more marked and important contrasts in the NI field exists within these RCTs—not, as many might assume, conflicting results but, instead, the quality of the underlying studies.

The pages of JNIS have chronicled these studies and we will not review the particulars of them again here. However, as with other spaces in the medical field, we have our share of both high-quality1–3 and low-quality4 studies. Some trials that the NI community collectively viewed as subpar were able to secure publication in lead journals, speaking to great variability of not just studies but review and publication. Indeed, JNIS has featured an article on some of the challenges of peer review.5

Sheth and colleagues published a recent comment called ‘Watching but not waiting: vascular neurology perspective on the disparate regulatory pathway for stroke’ in JNIS.6 They made a number of important points that should prompt conversation in our circles. The paper started with a discussion of how vascular neurologists were paying close attention to the completion of the regulatory pathway of the Watchman device for non-valvular atrial fibrillation as a cause of ischemic stroke.7 The authors lament the lack of involvement of vascular neurologists in the design of the Watchman trial and its subsequent approval pathway. We support this perspective from our neurology colleagues.

Non-inferiority versus superiority trial design

Sheth et al go …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.