European Stroke Organisation (ESO) and European Society for Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy (ESMINT) guideline on acute management of basilar artery occlusion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The aim of the present European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the acute management of patients with basilar artery occlusion (BAO). These guidelines were prepared following the Standard Operational Procedure of the ESO and according to the GRADE methodology.Although BAO accounts for only 1-2% of all strokes, it has very poor natural outcome. We identified 10 relevant clinical situations and formulated the corresponding Population Intervention Comparator Outcomes (PICO) questions, based on which a systematic literature search and review was performed. The working group consisted of 10 voting members (five representing ESO and five representing the European Society of Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapy (ESMINT)) and three non-voting junior members. The certainty of evidence was generally very low. In many PICOs, available data were scarce or lacking, hence, we provided expert consensus statements.First, we compared intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) to no IVT, but specific BAO-related data do not exist. Yet, historically, IVT was standard of care for BAO patients who were also included (although in small numbers) in IVT trials. Non-randomized studies of IVT-only cohorts showed a high proportion of favorable outcomes. Expert Consensus suggests using IVT up to 24 hours unless otherwise contraindicated. We further suggest IVT plus endovascular treatment (EVT) over direct EVT. EVT on top of best medical treatment (BMT) was compared with BMT alone within 6 and 6-24 hours from last seen well. In both time windows, we observed a different effect of treatment depending on a) the region where the patients were treated (Europe vs Asia), b) on the proportion of IVT in the BMT arm, and c) on the initial stroke severity. In case of high proportion of IVT in the BMT group and in patients with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score below 10, EVT plus BMT was not found better than BMT alone. Based on very low certainty of evidence, we suggest EVT+BMT over BMT alone (this is based on results of patients with at least 10 NIHSS points and a low proportion of IVT in BMT). For patients with an NIHSS score below 10, we found no evidence to recommend EVT over BMT. In fact, BMT was non-significantly better and safer than EVT. Furthermore, we found a stronger treatment effect of EVT+BMT over BMT alone in proximal and middle locations of BAO compared with distal location. While recommendations for patients without extensive early ischemic changes in the posterior fossa can, in general, follow those of other PICOs, we formulated an Expert Consensus Statement suggesting against reperfusion therapy in those with extensive bilateral and/or brainstem ischemic changes. Another Expert Consensus suggests reperfusion therapy regardless of collateral scores. Based on limited evidence, we suggest direct aspiration over stent retriever as the first-line strategy of mechanical thrombectomy. As an Expert Consensus, we suggest rescue percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and/or stenting after a failed EVT procedure. Finally, based on very low certainty of evidence, we suggest add-on antithrombotic treatment during EVT or within 24 hours after EVT in patients with no concomitant IVT and in whom EVT was complicated (defined as failed or imminent re-occlusion, or need for additional stenting or angioplasty).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».