Mechanical Thrombectomy in Stroke Could Have Worse Results in Low Volume Centers

The number of centers that are starting endovascular stroke therapy (EST) to treat acute stroke is growing fast, with a significant increase of cases in low volume centers. Interventional neurologists are not able to cover the high demand and interventional cardiologists are always ready to learn something new. Is this right? Should interventional cardiologists treat acute stroke? This study, soon to be published, sheds some light on the matter.

Calidad de vida entre cirugía y angioplastia para tratar la enfermedad del troncoDrastically increasing the number of operators in order to tackle the increasing demand will probably result in more low volume centers, which in turn will translate into poor outcomes, at least in the short term.  

 

We should not cut corners when it comes to training, and perhaps an interventional cardiologist interested in collaborating with interventional neurologists should reconsider their fellowship.

 

The chances of getting good results (defined as discharging patients and sending them home with total autonomy) is significantly higher in centers that perform many thrombectomy procedures a year.  


Read also: NOTION and UK TAVI Report Good Long-Term Outcomes.


Findings support the idea that the most recent thrombectomy study outcomes are partial.

 

Interventional neurologists have long resisted the idea of involving interventional cardiologists, and though they offer solutions such as chopper transfers to high volume centers or mobile stroke units, developing countries, such as Latin American countries, are far from being able to use choppers to transport patients.

 

There are several points to be taken into consideration when it comes to determining what is best. On the one hand, EST has been shown superior to medical therapy in high volume centers, tertiary centers with advanced neuroimaging technology, neurosurgeons, neuro-interventionists, and critical neurology and nursing care units.


Read also: Un Underestimated Symptom of Aortic Stenosis.


On the other hand, any delay or deviation from this translates into poor outcomes, even worse than letting nature follow its course.  

 

This study analyzed 3890 patients treated in the state of Florida between 2006 and 2016, and 42505 treated across the US between 2012 and 2016.

 

The number of procedures increased steadily year after year, peaked in 2015, and then levelled off.

 

Looking at Florida data, 87% of procedures performed in 2008 were concentrated in 8 large volume centers, but this proportion had fallen to 45% by 2016. By the end of the study, up to 25% of cases were performed in centers with a 20-case annual volume.

 

The problem of EST is clear, the answer is not.

 

Interventional cardiologists keep lurking, perhaps overly confident, relying too much on our manual dexterity while we disregard the fact that we venture in unknown vascular territory.

 

Original title: Real-World Treatment Trends in Endovascular Stroke Therapy.

Reference: Saber H et al. Stroke. 2019; Epub ahead of print.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

Pretreatment with DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ongoing Debate?

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become a fundamental pillar after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preventing stent thrombosis and acute...

Another Blow for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumo Counterpulsation? Randomized Study on Its Use in Chronic Heart Failure Progressing to Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a condition with extremely high mortality (around 50%). While most therapies for this pathology have been studied in CS secondary...

Radial Patency in Coronary Procedures: Is Heparin Enough or Should We Aim for Distal Transradial Access?

Transradial access is the preferred route in most coronary procedures due to its proven reduction in mortality compared to transfemoral access. However, one of...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Pretreatment with DAPT in Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ongoing Debate?

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has become a fundamental pillar after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preventing stent thrombosis and acute...

Measuring Post-TAVI Gradients and Their Implications: Are Invasive and Echocardiographic Assessments Comparable?

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered the treatment of choice for a significant proportion of patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Outcomes have improved...

Another Blow for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumo Counterpulsation? Randomized Study on Its Use in Chronic Heart Failure Progressing to Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a condition with extremely high mortality (around 50%). While most therapies for this pathology have been studied in CS secondary...