Understanding physician preferences about combined thrombolysis and thrombectomy in patients with large vessel occlusion: An international cross-sectional survey

A recently published individual participant-level meta-analysis found that EVT alone was not non-inferior to combined intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and EVT. Our aim was to determine factors that influence physicians’ treatment choice of IVT-alone versus EVT-alone versus a combined approach. We performed an international, structured, invite-only survey among physicians treating patients presenting with AIS. Respondents were asked 16 multiple choice questions. Fourteen questions involved the respondent being provided with a clinical scenario. In each scenario, a patient was presenting with an AIS with LVO, varying a single clinical or imaging feature. A total of 282 stroke physicians (mean age 46 years, 75 % males) participated in the survey. In LVO stroke, eligible for both IVT and EVT, without other qualifiers, 220 (85.9 %) respondents chose to pursue a combined approach. For age over 80 years, 191 (74 %) participants opted for combined approach, which decreased to 121 (48.2 %) with dementia and 148 (57.4 %) if the patient was on dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT). Of respondents choosing combination therapy in a patient above the age of 80, only 105 (56.8 %) would pursue the same in a patient with dementia. For imaging factors, 177 (72.8 %) opted for a combined approach for intracranial carotid occlusion, which decreased to 160 (65.3 %) in tandem occlusions. Overall, 88 (38 %) respondents agreed to the statement “I am uncomfortable with uncertainty in patient care”. In a typical patient with AIS due to LVO, most respondents still choose a combined revascularization approach but discrepancy in decision-making increases in complex scenarios.