Cargando…

Perceived acceptable uncertainty regarding comparability of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment

BACKGROUND: Most trials comparing endovascular treatment (EVT) alone versus intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase (IVT) + EVT in directly admitted patients with a stroke are non-inferiority trials. However, the margin based on the level of uncertainty regarding non-inferiority of the experimental...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaesmacher, Johannes, Mujanovic, Adnan, Treurniet, Kilian, Kappelhof, Manon, Meinel, Thomas R, Yang, Pengfei, Liu, Jianmin, Zhang, Yongwei, Zi, Wenjie, Yang, Qingwu, Nogueira, Raul G, Kimura, Kazumi, Matsumaru, Yuji, Suzuki, Kentaro, Yan, Bernard, Mitchell, Peter J, Miao, Zhongrong, Roos, Yvo B W E M, Majoie, Charles B L M, Gralla, Jan, Saver, Jeffrey L, Fischer, Urs
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9985721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35232755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018665
_version_ 1784901017924534272
author Kaesmacher, Johannes
Mujanovic, Adnan
Treurniet, Kilian
Kappelhof, Manon
Meinel, Thomas R
Yang, Pengfei
Liu, Jianmin
Zhang, Yongwei
Zi, Wenjie
Yang, Qingwu
Nogueira, Raul G
Kimura, Kazumi
Matsumaru, Yuji
Suzuki, Kentaro
Yan, Bernard
Mitchell, Peter J
Miao, Zhongrong
Roos, Yvo B W E M
Majoie, Charles B L M
Gralla, Jan
Saver, Jeffrey L
Fischer, Urs
author_facet Kaesmacher, Johannes
Mujanovic, Adnan
Treurniet, Kilian
Kappelhof, Manon
Meinel, Thomas R
Yang, Pengfei
Liu, Jianmin
Zhang, Yongwei
Zi, Wenjie
Yang, Qingwu
Nogueira, Raul G
Kimura, Kazumi
Matsumaru, Yuji
Suzuki, Kentaro
Yan, Bernard
Mitchell, Peter J
Miao, Zhongrong
Roos, Yvo B W E M
Majoie, Charles B L M
Gralla, Jan
Saver, Jeffrey L
Fischer, Urs
author_sort Kaesmacher, Johannes
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Most trials comparing endovascular treatment (EVT) alone versus intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase (IVT) + EVT in directly admitted patients with a stroke are non-inferiority trials. However, the margin based on the level of uncertainty regarding non-inferiority of the experimental treatment that clinicians are willing to accept to incorporate EVT alone into clinical practice remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize what experienced stroke clinicians would consider an acceptable level of uncertainty for hypothetical decisions on whether to administer IVT or not before EVT in patients admitted directly to EVT-capable centers. METHODS: A web-based, structured survey was distributed to a cross-section of 600 academic neurologists/neurointerventionalists. For this purpose, a response framework for a hypothetical trial comparing IVT+EVT (standard of care) with EVT alone (experimental arm) was designed. In this trial, a similar proportion of patients in each arm achieved functional independence at 90 days. Invited physicians were asked at what level of certainty they would feel comfortable skipping IVT in clinical practice, considering these hypothetical trial results. RESULTS: There were 180 respondents (response rate: 30%) and 165 with complete answers. The median chosen acceptable uncertainty suggesting reasonable comparability between both treatments was an absolute difference in the rate of day 90 functional independence of 3% (mode 5%, IQR 1–5%), with higher chosen margins observed in interventionalists (aOR 2.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.67). CONCLUSION: Physicians would generally feel comfortable skipping IVT before EVT at different certainty thresholds. Most physicians would treat with EVT alone if randomized trial data suggested that the number of patients achieving functional independence at 90 days was similar between the two groups, and one could be sufficiently sure that no more than 3 out of 100 patients would not achieve functional independence at 90 days due to skipping IVT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9985721
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99857212023-03-06 Perceived acceptable uncertainty regarding comparability of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment Kaesmacher, Johannes Mujanovic, Adnan Treurniet, Kilian Kappelhof, Manon Meinel, Thomas R Yang, Pengfei Liu, Jianmin Zhang, Yongwei Zi, Wenjie Yang, Qingwu Nogueira, Raul G Kimura, Kazumi Matsumaru, Yuji Suzuki, Kentaro Yan, Bernard Mitchell, Peter J Miao, Zhongrong Roos, Yvo B W E M Majoie, Charles B L M Gralla, Jan Saver, Jeffrey L Fischer, Urs J Neurointerv Surg Ischemic Stroke BACKGROUND: Most trials comparing endovascular treatment (EVT) alone versus intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase (IVT) + EVT in directly admitted patients with a stroke are non-inferiority trials. However, the margin based on the level of uncertainty regarding non-inferiority of the experimental treatment that clinicians are willing to accept to incorporate EVT alone into clinical practice remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize what experienced stroke clinicians would consider an acceptable level of uncertainty for hypothetical decisions on whether to administer IVT or not before EVT in patients admitted directly to EVT-capable centers. METHODS: A web-based, structured survey was distributed to a cross-section of 600 academic neurologists/neurointerventionalists. For this purpose, a response framework for a hypothetical trial comparing IVT+EVT (standard of care) with EVT alone (experimental arm) was designed. In this trial, a similar proportion of patients in each arm achieved functional independence at 90 days. Invited physicians were asked at what level of certainty they would feel comfortable skipping IVT in clinical practice, considering these hypothetical trial results. RESULTS: There were 180 respondents (response rate: 30%) and 165 with complete answers. The median chosen acceptable uncertainty suggesting reasonable comparability between both treatments was an absolute difference in the rate of day 90 functional independence of 3% (mode 5%, IQR 1–5%), with higher chosen margins observed in interventionalists (aOR 2.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.67). CONCLUSION: Physicians would generally feel comfortable skipping IVT before EVT at different certainty thresholds. Most physicians would treat with EVT alone if randomized trial data suggested that the number of patients achieving functional independence at 90 days was similar between the two groups, and one could be sufficiently sure that no more than 3 out of 100 patients would not achieve functional independence at 90 days due to skipping IVT. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-03 2022-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9985721/ /pubmed/35232755 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018665 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Ischemic Stroke
Kaesmacher, Johannes
Mujanovic, Adnan
Treurniet, Kilian
Kappelhof, Manon
Meinel, Thomas R
Yang, Pengfei
Liu, Jianmin
Zhang, Yongwei
Zi, Wenjie
Yang, Qingwu
Nogueira, Raul G
Kimura, Kazumi
Matsumaru, Yuji
Suzuki, Kentaro
Yan, Bernard
Mitchell, Peter J
Miao, Zhongrong
Roos, Yvo B W E M
Majoie, Charles B L M
Gralla, Jan
Saver, Jeffrey L
Fischer, Urs
Perceived acceptable uncertainty regarding comparability of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment
title Perceived acceptable uncertainty regarding comparability of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment
title_full Perceived acceptable uncertainty regarding comparability of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment
title_fullStr Perceived acceptable uncertainty regarding comparability of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment
title_full_unstemmed Perceived acceptable uncertainty regarding comparability of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment
title_short Perceived acceptable uncertainty regarding comparability of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment
title_sort perceived acceptable uncertainty regarding comparability of endovascular treatment alone versus intravenous thrombolysis plus endovascular treatment
topic Ischemic Stroke
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9985721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35232755
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-018665
work_keys_str_mv AT kaesmacherjohannes perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT mujanovicadnan perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT treurnietkilian perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT kappelhofmanon perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT meinelthomasr perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT yangpengfei perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT liujianmin perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT zhangyongwei perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT ziwenjie perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT yangqingwu perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT nogueiraraulg perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT kimurakazumi perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT matsumaruyuji perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT suzukikentaro perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT yanbernard perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT mitchellpeterj perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT miaozhongrong perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT roosyvobwem perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT majoiecharlesblm perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT grallajan perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT saverjeffreyl perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment
AT fischerurs perceivedacceptableuncertaintyregardingcomparabilityofendovasculartreatmentaloneversusintravenousthrombolysisplusendovasculartreatment