Positive experiences of healthcare professionals with a mainstreaming approach of germline genetic testing for women with ovarian cancer

According to current guidelines, all women with epithelial ovarian cancer are eligible for genetic testing for BRCA germline pathogenic variants. Unfortunately, not all affected women are tested. We evaluated the acceptability and feasibility for non-genetic healthcare professionals to incorporate germline genetic testing into their daily practice. We developed and implemented a mainstreaming pathway, including a training module, in collaboration with various healthcare professionals and patient organizations. Healthcare professionals from 4 different hospitals were invited to participate. After completing the training module, gynecologic oncologists, gynecologists with a subspecialty training in oncology, and nurse specialists discussed and ordered genetic testing themselves. They received a questionnaire before completing the training module and 6 months after working according to the new pathway. We assessed healthcare professionals' attitudes, perceived knowledge, and self-efficacy, along with the feasibility of this new mainstream workflow in clinical practice, and evaluated the use and content of the training module. The participation rate for completing the training module was 90% (N = 19/21). At baseline and after 6 months, healthcare professionals had a positive attitude, high perceived knowledge and high self-efficacy toward discussing and ordering genetic testing. Knowledge had increased significantly after 6 months. The training module was rated with an average of 8.1 out of 10 and was considered useful. The majority of healthcare professionals (9/15) was able to discuss a genetic test in five to 10 min. After completion of a training module, non-genetic healthcare professionals feel motivated and competent to discuss and order genetic testing themselves.Hereditary cancer genetic

Hospital Variation in Time to Endovascular Treatment for Ischemic Stroke:What Is the Optimal Target for Improvement?

Background Time to reperfusion in patients with ischemic stroke is strongly associated with functional outcome and may differ between hospitals and between patients within hospitals. Improvement in time to reperfusion can be guided by between-hospital and within-hospital comparisons and requires insight in specific targets for improvement. We aimed to quantify the variation in door-to-reperfusion time between and within Dutch intervention hospitals and to assess the contribution of different time intervals to this variation. Methods and Results We used data from the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands) Registry. The door-to-reperfusion time was subdivided into time intervals, separately for direct patients (door-to-computed tomography, computed tomography-to-computed tomography angiography [CTA], CTA-to-groin, and groin-to-reperfusion times) and for transferred patients (door-to-groin and groin-to-reperfusion times). We used linear mixed models to distinguish the variation in door-to-reperfusion time between hospitals and between patients. The proportional change in variance was used to estimate the amount of variance explained by each time interval. We included 2855 patients of 17 hospitals providing endovascular treatment. Of these patients, 44% arrived directly at an endovascular treatment hospital. The between-hospital variation in door-to-reperfusion time was 9%, and the within-hospital variation was 91%. The contribution of case-mix variables on the variation in door-to-reperfusion time was marginal (2%-7%). Of the between-hospital variation, CTA-to-groin time explained 83%, whereas groin-to-reperfusion time explained 15%. Within-hospital variation was mostly explained by CTA-to-groin time (33%) and groin-to-reperfusion time (42%). Similar results were found for transferred patients. Conclusions Door-to-reperfusion time varies between, but even more within, hospitals providing endovascular treatment for ischemic stroke. Quality of stroke care improvements should not only be guided by between-hospital comparisons, but also aim to reduce variation between patients within a hospital, and should specifically focus on CTA-to-groin time and groin-to-reperfusion time

Whole-brain Arterial Spin Labeling Perfusion MR Imaging in Patients With Acute Stroke

Neuro Imaging Researc

The Feasibility of Implementing Mainstream Germline Genetic Testing in Routine Cancer Care-A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Non-genetic healthcare professionals can provide pre-test counseling and order germline genetic tests themselves, which is called mainstream genetic testing. In this systematic review, we determined whether mainstream genetic testing was feasible in daily practice while maintaining quality of genetic care. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for articles describing mainstream genetic testing initiatives in cancer care. RESULTS: Seventeen articles, reporting on 15 studies, met the inclusion criteria. Non-genetic healthcare professionals concluded that mainstream genetic testing was possible within the timeframe of a routine consultation. In 14 studies, non-genetic healthcare professionals completed some form of training about genetics. When referral was coordinated by a genetics team, the majority of patients carrying a pathogenic variant were seen for post-test counseling by genetic healthcare professionals. The number of days between cancer diagnosis and test result disclosure was always lower in the mainstream genetic testing pathway than in the standard genetic testing pathway (e.g., pre-test counseling at genetics department). CONCLUSIONS: Mainstream genetic testing seems feasible in daily practice with no insurmountable barriers. A structured pathway with a training procedure is desirable, as well as a close collaboration between genetics and other clinical departments

Blood Pressure During Endovascular Treatment Under Conscious Sedation or Local Anesthesia

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of blood pressure (BP) as mediator of the effect of conscious sedation (CS) compared to local anesthesia (LA) on functional outcome after endovascular treatment (EVT). METHODS: Patients treated in the Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN) Registry centers with CS or LA as preferred anesthetic approach during EVT for ischemic stroke were analyzed. First, we evaluated the effect of CS on area under the threshold (AUT), relative difference between baseline and lowest procedural mean arterial pressure (∆LMAP), and procedural BP trend, compared to LA. Second, we assessed the association between BP and functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS]) with multivariable regression. Lastly, we evaluated whether BP explained the effect of CS on mRS. RESULTS: In 440 patients with available BP data, patients treated under CS (n = 262) had larger AUTs (median 228 vs 23 mm Hg*min), larger ∆LMAP (median 16% vs 6%), and a more negative BP trend (-0.22 vs -0.08 mm Hg/min) compared to LA (n = 178). Larger ∆LMAP and AUTs were associated with worse mRS (adjusted common odds ratio [acOR] per 10% drop 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.97, and acOR per 300 mm Hg*min 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97). Patients treated under CS had worse mRS compared to LA (acOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.87) and this association remained when adjusting for ∆LMAP and AUT (acOR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Large BP drops are associated with worse functional outcome. However, BP drops do not explain the worse outcomes in the CS group

Optimal Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis in 2021: The Jury is Still Out. An International, Multispecialty, Expert Review and Position Statement

Objectives: The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement is to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic. Materials and methods: A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies. Results: Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients < 75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses. Conclusions: Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high-risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in 2021: the jury is still out. An international, multispecialty, expert review and position statement

The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement was to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic. A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies. Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients <75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses. Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients. (Cite this article as: Paraskevas KI, Mikhailidis DP, Antignani PL, Baradaran H, Bokkers RP, Cambria RP, et al. Optimal management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in 2021: the jury is still out. An international, multispecialty, expert review and position statement. Int Angiol 2022;41:158-69. DOI: 10.23736/S03929590.21.04825-2

Optimal Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis in 2021: The Jury is Still Out. An International, Multispecialty, Expert Review and Position Statement

Objectives: The recommendations of international guidelines for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) often vary considerably and extend from a conservative approach with risk factor modification and best medical treatment (BMT) alone, to a more aggressive approach with a carotid intervention plus BMT. The aim of the current multispecialty position statement is to reconcile the conflicting views on the topic. Materials and methods: A literature review was performed with a focus on data from recent studies. Results: Several clinical and imaging high-risk features have been identified that are associated with an increased long-term ipsilateral ischemic stroke risk in patients with ACS. Such high-risk clinical/imaging features include intraplaque hemorrhage, impaired cerebrovascular reserve, carotid plaque echolucency/ulceration/ neovascularization, a lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin or ruptured fibrous cap, silent brain infarction, a contralateral transient ischemic attack/stroke episode, male patients < 75 years and microembolic signals on transcranial Doppler. There is growing evidence that 80-99% ACS indicate a higher stroke risk than 50-79% stenoses. Conclusions: Although aggressive risk factor control and BMT should be implemented in all ACS patients, several high-risk features that may increase the risk of a future cerebrovascular event are now documented. Consequently, some guidelines recommend a prophylactic carotid intervention in high-risk patients to prevent future cerebrovascular events. Until the results of the much-anticipated randomized controlled trials emerge, the jury is still out regarding the optimal management of ACS patients. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Comparison of Recent Practice Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Despite the publication of several national/international guidelines, the optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) remains controversial. This article compares 3 recently released guidelines (the 2020 German-Austrian, the 2021 European Stroke Organization [ESO], and the 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery [SVS] guidelines) vs the 2017 European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines regarding the optimal management of AsxCS patients. The 2017 ESVS guidelines defined specific imaging/clinical parameters that may identify patient subgroups at high future stroke risk and recommended that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should or carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered for these individuals. The 2020 German-Austrian guidelines provided similar recommendations with the 2017 ESVS Guidelines. The 2021 ESO Guidelines also recommended CEA for AsxCS patients at high risk for stroke on best medical treatment (BMT), but recommended against routine use of CAS in these patients. Finally, the SVS guidelines provided a strong recommendation for CEA+BMT vs BMT alone for low-surgical risk patients with >70% AsxCS. Thus, the ESVS, German-Austrian, and ESO guidelines concurred that all AsxCS patients should receive risk factor modification and BMT, but CEA should or CAS may also be considered for certain AsxCS patient subgroups at high risk for future ipsilateral ischemic stroke