Improving marine protected area governance through collaboration and co-production

Marine protected areas (MPAs) socio-ecological effectiveness depends on a number of management and governance elements, among which stakeholder engagement and community support play key roles. Collaborative conservation initiatives that engage stakeholders in action research and knowledge co-production processes can enhance management and governance of MPAs. To design effective strategies aimed at reconciling biodiversity conservation and management of sustainable human uses, it is key to assess how local communities respond to such initiatives and identify the set of contextual factors, institutional, local and individual, potentially affecting these responses. This paper presents the approach and results of one such initiative, spanning 6 EU countries and 11 MPAs in the Mediterranean Sea, focusing on small-scale fishers as key MPA users. Through a collaborative project, managers and fishers agreed upon specific governance interventions (e.g. increasing stakeholder engagement, engaging fishers in monitoring activities, reducing fishing efforts) to be implemented in each MPA for one year. Structured surveys queried: MPA managers on the MPA context, governance structure, feasibility and effectiveness of the tested interventions; and small-scale fishers on their perceptions of the impact of the tested interventions on a set of 9 socio-ecological variables (e.g. amount of fish caught, level of participation in decision-making, support for the MPA). Results revealed that the interventions tested were relatively feasible, effective and cost-effective. Fishers reported positive perceptions of the interventions for the 9 variables considered, especially for level of support for the MPA and for those associated with aspects of governance. Proportional odds models highlighted perceived effects are maximized under certain institutional, local and individual circumstances (e.g. old MPAs, small fisher communities, and fishers with a high proportion of income from fisheries). Findings highlight that employing good governance processes involving stakeholders may rapidly generate improved local support for conservation and provide insights for potential leverage points upon which to act to maximize perceived effectiveness and enhance support toward MPAs

Impact of thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke without occlusion: an observational comparative study.

The impact of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (IV-rtPA) in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) but no arterial occlusion is currently a matter of debate. This study aimed to assess functional outcome of such patients with respect to IV-rtPA use. A retrospective case-control analysis was performed comparing the outcome of AIS patients without arterial occlusion with or without IV-rtPA use. Patients were selected from prospective consecutive observational registries of five European university hospitals. The primary study outcome was excellent outcome at 3 months after stroke, as defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-1. A total of 488 patients without arterial occlusion documented by angiography were included in the present study; 300 received IV-rtPA and 188 did not. No between-group difference was found for excellent outcome before and after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted odds ratio for no IV-rtPA use 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.24, P = 0.31). Similar results were found for favourable outcome (defined as a 90-day mRS of 0-2) whereas a higher rate of early neurological improvement was found in IV-rtPA-treated patients (adjusted odds ratio 1.99; 95% confidence interval 1.29-3.07, P = 0.002). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Our study suggests that AIS patients without visible arterial occlusion treated with IV-rtPA may have no better outcome at 3 months than those untreated. However, only a randomized controlled trial would provide a definitive answer about the impact of rtPA in acute stroke patients without occlusion. Until then, these patients should be treated by rtPA as recommended

Cyclosporine in acute ischemic stroke

International audienceOBJECTIVES: We examined whether IV administration of cyclosporine in combination with thrombolysis might reduce cerebral infarct size. METHODS: Patients aged 18 to 85 years, presenting with an anterior-circulation stroke and eligible for thrombolytic therapy, were enrolled in this multicenter, single-blinded, controlled trial. Fifteen minutes after randomization, patients received either an IV bolus injection of 2.0 mg/kg cyclosporine (Sandimmune, Novartis) or placebo. The primary endpoint was infarct volume on MRI at 30 days. Secondary endpoints included infarct volume according to the site (proximal/distal) of arterial occlusion and recanalization after thrombolysis. RESULTS: From October 2009 to July 2013, 127 patients were enrolled. The primary endpoint was assessed in 110 of 127 patients. The reduction of infarct volume in the cyclosporine compared with the control group was overall not significant (21.8 mL [interquartile range, IQR 5.1, 69.2 mL] vs 28.8 mL [IQR 7.7, 95.0 mL], respectively; p = 0.18). However, in patients with proximal occlusion and effective recanalization, infarct volume was significantly reduced in the cyclosporine compared with the control group (14.9 mL [IQR 1.3, 23.2 mL] vs 48.3 mL [IQR 34.5, 118.2 mL], respectively; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporine was generally not effective in reducing infarct size. However, a smaller infarct size was observed in patients with proximal cerebral artery occlusion and efficient recanalization. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that in patients with an acute anterior-circulation stroke, thrombolysis plus IV cyclosporine does not significantly decrease 30-day MRI infarct volume compared with thrombolysis alone

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons