Search

BackgroundThe aim of this article is to outline a position statement on pregnancy and parental leave for physicians practicing neurointerventional surgery.MethodsWe performed a structured literature review regarding parental leave policies in neurointerventional surgery and related fields. The recommendations resulted from discussion among the authors, and additional input from the Women in NeuroIntervention Committee, the full Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS) Standards and Guidelines Committee, and the SNIS Board of Directors.ResultsSome aspects of workplace safety during pregnancy are regulated by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Other aspects of the workplace and reasonable job accommodations are legally governed by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as rights and protections put forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as part of the United States Department of Labor. Family friendly policies have been associated not only with improved job satisfaction but also with improved parental and infant outcomes. Secondary effects of such accommodations are to increase the number of women within the specialty.ConclusionsSNIS supports a physician’s ambition to have a family as well as start, develop, and maintain a career in neurointerventional surgery. Legal and regulatory mandates and family friendly workplace policies should be considered when institutions and individual practitioners approach the issue of childbearing in the context of a career in neurointerventional surgery.

BackgroundThe purpose of this guideline is to summarize the data available for performing mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) stroke in special populations not typically included in large randomized controlled clinical trials, including children, the elderly, pregnant women, patients who have recently undergone surgery, and patients with thrombocytopenia, collagen vascular disorders, and endocarditis.MethodsWe performed a literature review for studies examining the indications, efficacy, and outcomes for patients undergoing MT for ischemic stroke aged 80 years, pregnant patients, patients who have recently undergone surgery, and those with thrombocytopenia, collagen vascular diseases, or endocarditis. We graded the quality of the evidence.ResultsMT can be effective for the treatment of ELVO in ischemic stroke for patients over age 80 years and under age 18 years, thrombocytopenic patients, pregnant patients, and patients with endocarditis. While outcomes are worse compared to younger patients and those with normal platelet counts (respectively), there is still a benefit in the elderly (in both mRS and mortality). Data are very limited for patients with collagen vascular diseases; although diagnostic cerebral angiography carries increased risks, MT may be appropriate in carefully selected patients in whom untreated ELVO would likely result in disabling or fatal outcome.

BackgroundAntiplatelet and antithrombotic medication management before, during, and after neurointerventional procedures has significant practice variation. This document updates and builds upon the 2014 Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS) Guideline ‘Platelet function inhibitor and platelet function testing in neurointerventional procedures’, providing updates based on the treatment of specific pathologies and for patients with specific comorbidities.MethodsWe performed a structured literature review of studies that have become available since the 2014 SNIS Guideline. We graded the quality of the evidence. Recommendations were arrived at through a consensus conference of the authors, then with additional input from the full SNIS Standards and Guidelines Committee and the SNIS Board of Directors.ResultsThe management of antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents before, during, and after endovascular neurointerventional procedures continues to evolve. The following recommendations were agreed on. (1) It is reasonable to resume anticoagulation after a neurointerventional procedure or major bleeding episode as soon as the thrombotic risk exceeds the bleeding risk in an individual patient (Class I, Level C-EO). (2) Platelet testing can be useful to guide local practice, and specific approaches to using the numbers demonstrate marked local variability (Class IIa, Level B-NR). (3) For patients without comorbidities undergoing brain aneurysm treatment, there are no additional considerations for medication choice beyond the thrombotic risks of the catheterization procedure and aneurysm treatment devices (Class IIa, Level B-NR). (4) For patients undergoing neurointerventional brain aneurysm treatment who have had cardiac stents placed within the last 6–12 months, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is recommended (Class I, Level B-NR). (5) For patients being evaluated for neurointeventional brain aneurysm treatment who had venous thrombosis more than 3 months prior, discontinuation of oral anticoagulation (OAC) or vitamin K antagonists should be considered as weighed against the risk of delaying aneurysm treatment. For venous thrombosis less than 3 months in the past, delay of the neurointerventional procedure should be considered. If this is not possible, see atrial fibrillation recommendations (Class IIb, Level C-LD). (6) For patients with atrial fibrillation receiving OAC and in need of a neurointerventional procedure, the duration of TAT (triple antiplatelet/anticoagulation therapy=OAC plus DAPT) should be kept as short as possible or avoided in favor of OAC plus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) based on the individual’s ischemic and bleeding risk profile (Class IIa, Level B-NR). (7) For patients with unruptured brain arteriovenous malformations there is no indication to change antiplatelet or anticoagulant management instituted for management of another disease (Class IIb, Level C-LD). (8) Patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) should continue DAPT following neurointerventional treatment for secondary stroke prevention (Class IIa, Level B-NR). (9) Following neurointerventional treatment for ICAD, DAPT should be continued for at least 3 months. In the absence of new stroke or transient ischemic attack symptoms, reversion to SAPT can be considered based on an individual patient’s risk of hemorrhage versus ischemia (Class IIb, Level C-LD). (10) Patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS) should receive DAPT before and for at least 3 months following their procedure (Class IIa, Level B-R). (11) In patients undergoing CAS during emergent large vessel occlusion ischemic stroke treatment, it may be reasonable to administer a loading dose of intravenous or oral glycoprotein IIb/IIIa or P2Y12 inhibitor followed by maintenance intravenous infusion or oral dosing to prevent stent thrombosis whether or not the patient has received thrombolytic therapy (Class IIb, C-LD). (12) For patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, anticoagulation with heparin is front-line therapy; endovascular therapy may be considered particularly in cases of clinical deterioration despite medical therapy (Class IIa, Level B-R).ConclusionsAlthough the quality of evidence is lower than for coronary interventions due to a lower number of patients and procedures, neurointerventional antiplatelet and antithrombotic management shares several themes. Prospective and randomized studies are needed to strengthen the data supporting these recommendations.

The purpose of this publication is to provide a review of social media usage by neurointerventionalists. Using published literature and available local, regional, and national guidelines or laws, we reviewed data on social media usage as it pertains to neurointerventional surgery. Recommendations are provided based on the quality of information and conformity of medico-legal precedent and law. Social media is a growing entity as it is used both promotionally and educationally. Neurointerventionalists may post de-identified radiographic images with discussions, but should be conscientious and adhere to applicable laws and regulations, strict ethical codes, and institutional policies.

Objective To demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of extra-femoral endovascular access for mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in patients whose vascular anatomy precludes safe or maneuverable trans-femoral access. Methods We present a case series of seven patients treated by four separate neurointerventionalists utilizing either trans-radial or trans-cervical carotid access for treatment of acute ischemic stroke. All cases, except for one, were performed at Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx NY. Results All seven patients presented with AIS symptoms and initial NCCT revealed no contraindications to proceeding for mechanical thrombectomy. Patients ranged from 25 to 88 years of age. There were two cases of basilar artery occlusion, two right middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusions, two left MCA occlusions and one patient with a left carotid terminus occlusion. Femoral access was attempted in all but two patients, and sheath placement was successful in these five cases. In two of these five cases however, femoral catheterization was aborted after sheath placement due to identification of impassable femoral or aortic vascular anatomy; a prior fem-fem bypass in one and bilateral common femoral artery occlusions in another. The most common reason for aborting femoral access for thrombectomy was vessel tortuosity impeding catheterization of intracranial segments of either anterior or posterior circulation vessels. Four patients were treated via radial artery access and three patients were treated via cervical carotid access. Recanalization was achieved in six out of the seven patients. In five of the patients a TICI 2 B/3 recanalization score was achieved, and in one patient a TICI 2 A. There were no immediate procedure related complications observed. Two patients progressed to hemorrhagic conversion of their prior infarcts. No new acute infarcts were noted in any patient. Two patients expired several days post-thrombectomy due to cardiopulmonary arrest unrelated to intervention. Conclusions While trans-femoral access remains the mainstay for endovascular treatment of AIS, risk of vascular injury and delay of recanalization should alert the interventionalist to consider extra-femoral approaches. This case series demonstrates the safety and success possible with trans-radial or trans-cervical carotid catheterization in the setting of mechanical thrombectomy for AIS. With these findings, we feel strongly that further standardization of these techniques, guidelines for the need of extra-femoral access prospectively, and development of devices tailored for trans-radial and trans-cervical carotid approaches are indispensable to see significant advancements in the field of interventional stroke treatment. Disclosures N. Haranhalli: None. D. Altschul: None. D. Pasquale: None.