ArticleClinical neuroradiology2023
Specialist Perspectives on the Imaging Selection of Large Vessel Occlusion in the Late Window.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual Alberta stroke program early computed tomography score versus RAPID-AI perfusion in predicting outcome after late-window thrombectomy.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
- CLEAR Thrombectomy Score: An Index to Estimate the Probability of Good Functional Outcome With or Without Endovascular Treatment in the Late Window for Anterior Circulation Occlusion.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Observational
- Noncontrast CT Selected Thrombectomy vs Medical Management for Late-Window Anterior Large Vessel Occlusion.Neurology · 2024Article
- Comparison between MRI FLAIR vascular hyperintensity-DWI mismatch and perfusion based triage for thrombectomy in the late time window.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Endovascular Therapy for Acute Stroke: New Evidence and Indications.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2023Review
- Endovascular recanalization for acute posterior cerebral artery occlusion: a pre-specified secondary analysis of the ATTENTION, BAOCHE, and PLATO studies.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
76 authors at 20 institutions in 22 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe proper imaging modality for use in the selection of patients for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) presenting in the late window remains controversial, despite current guidelines advocating the use of advanced imaging in this population. We sought to understand if clinicians with different specialty training differ in their approach to patient selection for EVT in the late time window.
methodsWe conducted an international survey of stroke and neurointerventional clinicians between January and May 2022 with questions focusing on imaging and treatment decisions of large vessel occlusion (LVO) patients presenting in the late window. Interventional neurologists, interventional neuroradiologists, and endovascular neurosurgeons were defined as interventionists whereas all other specialties were defined as non-interventionists. The non-interventionist group was defined by all other specialties of the respondents: stroke neurologist, neuroradiologist, emergency medicine physician, trainee (fellows and residents) and others.
resultsOf 3000 invited to participate, 1506 (1027 non-interventionists, 478 interventionists, 1 declined to specify) physicians completed the study. Interventionist respondents were more likely to proceed directly to EVT (39.5% vs. 19.5%; p < 0.0001) compared to non-interventionist respondents in patients with favorable ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score). Despite no difference in access to advanced imaging, interventionists were more likely to prefer CT/CTA alone (34.8% vs. 21.0%) and less likely to prefer CT/CTA/CTP (39.1% vs. 52.4%) for patient selection (p < 0.0001). When faced with uncertainty, non-interventionists were more likely to follow clinical guidelines (45.1% vs. 30.2%) while interventionists were more likely to follow their assessment of evidence (38.7% vs. 27.0%) (p < 0.0001).
conclusionInterventionists were less likely to use advanced imaging techniques in selecting LVO patients presenting in the late window and more likely to base their decisions on their assessment of evidence rather than published guidelines. These results reflect gaps between interventionists and non-interventionists reliance on clinical guidelines, the limits of available evidence, and clinician belief in the utility of advanced imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.