Abstract
Background and aim The clinical importance and management of vasospasm as a complication during endovascular stroke treatment (EVT) has not been well studied. We sought to investigate current expert opinions in neuro-intervention and therapeutic strategies of iatrogenic vasospasm during EVT.
Methods We conducted an anonymous international online survey (April 04th to May 15th 2023) addressing treatment standards of neurointerventionalists (NI) practicing EVT. Several illustrative cases of patients with vasospasm during EVT were shown. Two study groups were compared according to the NI’s opinion regarding the potential influence of vasospasm on patient outcome after EVT using descriptive analysis.
Results In total, 534 NI from 56 countries responded, of whom 51.5% had performed more than 200 EVT. Vasospasm was considered a complication potentially influencing the patient’s outcome by 52.6% (Group 1) whereas 47.4% did not (Group 2). Physicians in Group 1 more often added vasodilators to their catheter flushes during EVT routinely (43.7% vs. 33.9%, p = 0.033) and more often treated severe large-vessel vasospasm with vasodilators (75.3% vs. 55.9%; p < 0.001), as well as extracranial vasospasm (61.4% vs. 36.5%, p < 0.001) and intracranial medium-vessel vasospasm (27.1 % vs. 11.2%, p < 0.001), compared to Group 2. In case of a large-vessel vasospasm and residual and amenable medium vessel occlusion during EVT, the study groups showed different treatment strategies. Group 2 continued the EVT immediately more often, without initiating therapy to treat the vasospasm first (9.6% vs 21.1%, p < 0.001).
Conclusion There is disagreement among neurointerventionalists about the clinical relevance of vasospasm during EVT and its management. There was a higher likelihood of use of preventive and active vasodilator treatment in the group that perceived vasospasm as a relevant complication as well as differing interventional strategies for continuing an EVT in the presence of a large-vessel vasospasm.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was not funded.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics approval was granted by the local research ethics board (Medical Faculty, University of Aachen, Germany, local registration number 23-095).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Original data can be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request via eMail.
