Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rapid decision making optimizes outcomes from endovascular thrombectomy for acute cerebral ischemia. Visual displays facilitate swift review of potential outcomes and can accelerate decision processes. METHODS: From patient-level, pooled randomized trial data, 100 person-icon arrays (Kuiper-Marshall personographs) were generated showing beneficial and adverse effects of endovascular thrombectomy for patients with acute cerebral ischemia and large vessel occlusion using (1) automated (algorithmic) and (2) expert-guided joint outcome table specification. RESULTS: For the full 7-category modified Rankin Scale, thrombectomy added to IV tPA (intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator) alone had number needed to treat to benefit 2.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.6-3.3) and number needed to harm 68.9 (95% confidence interval, 40-250); thrombectomy for patients ineligible for IV tPA had number needed to treat to benefit 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.5) and number needed to harm 100 (95% confidence interval, 62.5-250). Visual displays of treatment effects on 100 patients showed: with thrombectomy added to IV tPA alone, 34 patients have better disability outcome, including 14 more normal or near normal (modified Rankin Scale, 0-1); with thrombectomy for patients ineligible for IV tPA, 44 patients have a better disability outcome, including 16 more normal or nearly normal. Displays also showed that harm (increased modified Rankin Scale final disability) occurred in 1 of 100 patients in both populations, mediated by increased new territory infarcts. The person-icon figures integrated these outcomes, and early side-effects, in a single display. CONCLUSIONS: Visual decision aids are now available to rapidly educate healthcare providers, patients, and families about benefits and risks of endovascular thrombectomy, both when added to IV tPA in tPA-eligible patients and as the sole reperfusion treatment in tPA-ineligible patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tokunboh et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: