Background While mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the standard of care for large vessel occlusion strokes, the optimal management of tandem occlusions (TO) remains uncertain. We aimed to determine the current practice patterns among stroke physicians involved in the treatment of TO during MT.
Methods We distributed an online survey to neurovascular practitioners (stroke neurologists, neurointerventionalists, neurosurgeons, and radiologists), members of professional societies. After 2 months the site was closed and data were extracted and analyzed. We divided respondents into acute stenting and delayed treatment groups and responses were compared between the two groups.
Results We received 220 responses from North America (48%), Latin America (28%), Asia (15%), Europe (5%), and Africa (4%). Preferred timing for cervical revascularization varied among respondents; 51% preferred treatment in a subsequent procedure during the same hospitalization whereas 39% preferred to treat during MT. Angioplasty and stenting (41%) was the preferred technique, followed by balloon angioplasty and local aspiration (38%). The risk of intracerebral hemorrhage was the most compelling reason for not stenting acutely (68%). There were no significant differences among practice characteristics and timing groups. Most practitioners (70%) agreed that there is equipoise regarding the optimal endovascular treatment of cervical lesions in TO; hence, 77% would participate in a randomized controlled trial.
Conclusions The PICASSO survey demonstrates multiple areas of uncertainty regarding the medical and endovascular management of TOs. Experts acknowledged the need for further evidence and their willingness to participate in a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the best treatment for the cervical TO lesion.
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Twitter @ossama_mansour, @CerebrosvascLab
Contributors Conceptualization: SO-G, OOZ, CBZ, MF. Data collection and analysis: CBZ, MF, DQ-O, AM-R, MP, KB. Writing - original draft: CBZ. Writing - review and editing: SO-G, MF, MP, SOM, OM, FMA, TNN, LL, AHS, JFF, APJ, OOZ.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Map disclaimer The depiction of boundaries on this map does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ (or any member of its group) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. This map is provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.
Competing interests SO-G: Consultant for Medtronic and Stryker Neurovascular. OOZ: Consultant and speaker for Cerenovus, Stryker, Penumbra, and Medtronic. TNN: Research support from Medtronic. SOM: Consultant for Bayer, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. FMA: Consultant for Balt USA, Medtronic, MicroVention, Penumbra, and Stryker. AHS: Consultant for Amnis Therapeutics, Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems USA, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Cerenovus, Corindus, Endostream Medical, Imperative Care, Integra LifeSciences Corp, Medtronic, MicroVention, Minnetronix Neuro, Northwest University–DSMB Chair for HEAT Trial, Penumbra, Q’Apel Medical, Rapid Medical, Rebound Therapeutics Corp (purchased by Integra LifeSciences Corp), Serenity Medical, Silk Road Medical, StimMed, Stryker, Three Rivers Medical, VasSol, W L Gore & Associates. JFF: Consultant for Stream Biomedical, Penumbra and Medtronic Neurovascular.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.