DESTINY-S: Attitudes of Physicians Toward Disability and Treatment in Malignant MCA Infarction |
| |
Authors: | Hermann Neugebauer Claire J. Creutzfeldt J. Claude Hemphill III Peter U. Heuschmann Eric Jüttler |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Department of Neurology, RKU – University- and Rehabilitation Hospitals Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 45, 89081, Ulm, Germany 2. Department of Neurology, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA 3. Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA 4. Institute of Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany 5. Comprehensive Heart Failure Center, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany 6. Clinical Trial Center Würzburg, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany 7. Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité – University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany
|
| |
Abstract: |
Background Decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) reduces mortality and improves outcome after malignant middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarction but leaves a high number of survivors severely disabled. Attitudes among physicians toward the degree of disability that is considered acceptable and the impact of aphasia may play a major role in treatment decisions. Methods DESTINY-S is a multicenter, international, cross-sectional survey among 1,860 physicians potentially involved in the treatment of malignant MCA infarction. Questions concerned the grade of disability, the hemisphere of the stroke, and the preferred treatment for malignant MCA infarction. Results mRS scores of 3 or better were considered acceptable by the majority of respondents (79.3 %). Only few considered a mRS score of 5 still acceptable (5.8 %). A mRS score of 4 was considered acceptable by 38.0 %. Involved hemisphere (dominant vs. non-dominant) was considered a major clinical symptom influencing treatment decisions in 47.7 % of respondents, also reflected by significantly different rates for DHC as preferred treatment in dominant versus non-dominant hemispheric infarction (46.9 vs. 72.9 %). Significant differences in acceptable disability and treatment decisions were found among geographic regions, medical specialties, and respondents with different work experiences. Conclusion Little consensus exists among physicians regarding acceptable outcome and therapeutic management after malignant MCA infarction, and physician’s recommendations do not correlate with available evidence. We advocate for a decision-making process that balances scientific evidence, patient preference, and clinical expertise. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|