北美神经科医生静脉注射肝素的使用:数据重要吗?

A. Al-Sadat, Mohammad F Sunbulli, S. Chaturvedi
{"title":"北美神经科医生静脉注射肝素的使用:数据重要吗?","authors":"A. Al-Sadat, Mohammad F Sunbulli, S. Chaturvedi","doi":"10.1161/01.STR.0000018081.33541.E3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Purpose— Our aim was to determine current usage patterns of intravenous heparin for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods— A survey was undertaken of 280 neurologists from the United States and 270 neurologists from Canada. Brief vignettes were presented for the following 5 scenarios: stroke in evolution, atrial fibrillation-related stroke (A FIB), vertebrobasilar stroke, carotid territory stroke, and multiple transient ischemic attacks. The effect of medicolegal factors was also ascertained. Statistical comparisons were done with chi-squared testing. Results— US neurologists were significantly more likely than Canadian neurologists to use intravenous heparin for patients with stroke in evolution (51% versus 33%, P <0.001), vertebrobasilar stroke (30% versus 8%, P <0.001), carotid territory stroke (31% versus 4%, P <0.001), and multiple transient ischemic attacks (47% versus 9%, P <0.001). The vast majority of US and Canadian neurologists would use intravenous heparin for acute stroke patients with A FIB (88% and 84%, respectively). US neurologists more often cited medicolegal factors as a potential influence on the decision-making process than Canadian neurologists (33% versus 10%, P <0.001). Conclusions— In several clinical scenarios, US neurologists were significantly more likely than Canadian neurologists to use intravenous heparin. Fears regarding medicolegal consequences may partially explain the treatment disparity. Despite the publication of 4 clinical trials, which have not shown any long-term benefit for patients with acute stroke and A FIB (International Stroke Trial, Heparin in Acute Embolic Stroke Trial) or cardioembolic stroke (Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment, the Tinzaparin in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trial), both US and Canadian neurologists would use intravenous heparin in large numbers for this condition. Further studies are warranted to investigate the lack of impact of “negative” studies on clinician behavior.","PeriodicalId":22274,"journal":{"name":"Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":"12 1","pages":"1574-1577"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"59","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of Intravenous Heparin by North American Neurologists: Do the Data Matter?\",\"authors\":\"A. Al-Sadat, Mohammad F Sunbulli, S. Chaturvedi\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/01.STR.0000018081.33541.E3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background and Purpose— Our aim was to determine current usage patterns of intravenous heparin for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods— A survey was undertaken of 280 neurologists from the United States and 270 neurologists from Canada. Brief vignettes were presented for the following 5 scenarios: stroke in evolution, atrial fibrillation-related stroke (A FIB), vertebrobasilar stroke, carotid territory stroke, and multiple transient ischemic attacks. The effect of medicolegal factors was also ascertained. Statistical comparisons were done with chi-squared testing. Results— US neurologists were significantly more likely than Canadian neurologists to use intravenous heparin for patients with stroke in evolution (51% versus 33%, P <0.001), vertebrobasilar stroke (30% versus 8%, P <0.001), carotid territory stroke (31% versus 4%, P <0.001), and multiple transient ischemic attacks (47% versus 9%, P <0.001). The vast majority of US and Canadian neurologists would use intravenous heparin for acute stroke patients with A FIB (88% and 84%, respectively). US neurologists more often cited medicolegal factors as a potential influence on the decision-making process than Canadian neurologists (33% versus 10%, P <0.001). Conclusions— In several clinical scenarios, US neurologists were significantly more likely than Canadian neurologists to use intravenous heparin. Fears regarding medicolegal consequences may partially explain the treatment disparity. Despite the publication of 4 clinical trials, which have not shown any long-term benefit for patients with acute stroke and A FIB (International Stroke Trial, Heparin in Acute Embolic Stroke Trial) or cardioembolic stroke (Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment, the Tinzaparin in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trial), both US and Canadian neurologists would use intravenous heparin in large numbers for this condition. Further studies are warranted to investigate the lack of impact of “negative” studies on clinician behavior.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22274,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"1574-1577\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"59\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000018081.33541.E3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke: Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000018081.33541.E3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 59

摘要

背景和目的:我们的目的是确定急性缺血性脑卒中患者静脉注射肝素的当前使用模式。方法:对来自美国的280名神经科医生和来自加拿大的270名神经科医生进行调查。简要介绍了以下5种情况:进化中的中风、房颤相关中风(A FIB)、椎基底动脉中风、颈动脉区域中风和多次短暂性脑缺血发作。确定了法医学因素的影响。统计学比较采用卡方检验。结果:美国的神经科医生比加拿大的神经科医生更有可能使用静脉注射肝素治疗发展中的中风(51%比33%,P <0.001)、椎基底动脉中风(30%比8%,P <0.001)、颈动脉区域中风(31%比4%,P <0.001)和多次短暂性脑缺血发作(47%比9%,P <0.001)。绝大多数美国和加拿大的神经科医生会给急性脑卒中合并心房纤颤患者静脉注射肝素(分别为88%和84%)。美国神经科医生比加拿大神经科医生更常将医学法律因素作为影响决策过程的潜在因素(33%对10%,P <0.001)。结论:在一些临床情况下,美国神经科医生明显比加拿大神经科医生更可能使用静脉注射肝素。对医疗法律后果的担忧可能部分解释了治疗差异。尽管已发表的4项临床试验没有显示急性卒中和心房纤颤(国际卒中试验,肝素治疗急性栓塞性卒中试验)或心脏栓塞性卒中(Org - 172急性卒中治疗试验,Tinzaparin治疗急性缺血性卒中试验)患者有任何长期益处,但美国和加拿大的神经科医生仍会大量使用静脉注射肝素治疗这种情况。需要进一步的研究来调查“负面”研究对临床医生行为缺乏影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Use of Intravenous Heparin by North American Neurologists: Do the Data Matter?
Background and Purpose— Our aim was to determine current usage patterns of intravenous heparin for patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods— A survey was undertaken of 280 neurologists from the United States and 270 neurologists from Canada. Brief vignettes were presented for the following 5 scenarios: stroke in evolution, atrial fibrillation-related stroke (A FIB), vertebrobasilar stroke, carotid territory stroke, and multiple transient ischemic attacks. The effect of medicolegal factors was also ascertained. Statistical comparisons were done with chi-squared testing. Results— US neurologists were significantly more likely than Canadian neurologists to use intravenous heparin for patients with stroke in evolution (51% versus 33%, P <0.001), vertebrobasilar stroke (30% versus 8%, P <0.001), carotid territory stroke (31% versus 4%, P <0.001), and multiple transient ischemic attacks (47% versus 9%, P <0.001). The vast majority of US and Canadian neurologists would use intravenous heparin for acute stroke patients with A FIB (88% and 84%, respectively). US neurologists more often cited medicolegal factors as a potential influence on the decision-making process than Canadian neurologists (33% versus 10%, P <0.001). Conclusions— In several clinical scenarios, US neurologists were significantly more likely than Canadian neurologists to use intravenous heparin. Fears regarding medicolegal consequences may partially explain the treatment disparity. Despite the publication of 4 clinical trials, which have not shown any long-term benefit for patients with acute stroke and A FIB (International Stroke Trial, Heparin in Acute Embolic Stroke Trial) or cardioembolic stroke (Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment, the Tinzaparin in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trial), both US and Canadian neurologists would use intravenous heparin in large numbers for this condition. Further studies are warranted to investigate the lack of impact of “negative” studies on clinician behavior.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信