ArticleNeurological research and practice2026
Collaborative neurocardiology board meetings for decision-making in stroke care: a real-world experience.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInterdisciplinary collaboration between neurologists and cardiologists is needed to provide state-of-the art stroke care and individualized decisions about secondary prevention strategies. This highlights the need to establish working structures for joint decision-making between cardiologists and stroke neurologists. At present, studies describing the real-world decision-making as part of such brain-heart teams are scarce.
methodsWe established a structured heart–brain team approach with monthly virtual neurocardiology board (NCB) meetings within a neurovascular network. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the implementation phase of NCB meetings between 2021 and 2024. We describe the structure of board meetings, patient characteristics and therapeutic and diagnostic recommendations.
resultsDuring the study period, 46 board meetings were held, and 255 patients were discussed. The number of referred patients increased from 32 in 2021 to 89 in 2024. The majority of patients were evaluated for patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure (n = 189, 74.1%, median age 56 years, 59.8% female) and left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) (n = 32, 12.5%, median age 83 years, 50% female). Further questions centered around other individual secondary prevention strategies. Among patients referred to discuss PFO closure, closure was not recommended in 43.4% of patients (n = 82), recommended depending on additional diagnostic measures in 13.8% (n = 26), considered optional in 19.6% (n = 37) and clrearly recommended in 23.3% (n = 44). Patients for whom it was not recommended were older, had more cardiovascular risk factors and were less likely to have a large PFO shunt. The main reason for the recommendation against closure was that the PFO was not considered causal for the stroke (80.5%). Among LAAO patients, participation in a randomized controlled trial was recommended in 68.8%.
conclusionsWe successfully established and steadily expanded regular NCB meetings to provide a platform for interdisciplinary exchange and personalized stroke treatment, in particular discussion of indications for interventional procedures against cardiac embolism. Our approach may serve as a blueprint for similar collaborative approaches. Future studies are needed to assess adherence to recommendations and patient outcomes as this study lacks follow-up data.
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.