Update Of National Guidelines Research Articles

Patterns of Mechanical Thrombectomy for Stroke Before and After the 2015 Pivotal Trials and US National Guideline Update

BackgroundPositive pivotal trials followed by guideline endorsement can be a major driver of change in US national medical practice patterns. We therefore analyzed national trends in the use and outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion before and after the 2015 publication of pivotal trials and the US guideline update. MethodsWe analyzed the National Inpatient Sample from 2012-2016. Ischemic stroke and mechanical thrombectomy patients were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10. The primary efficacy outcome measure was discharge to home, which strongly correlates with mild degree of disability at discharge. Safety outcomes include in-hospital mortality and in-hospital medical complications. ResultsFrom 2012-2016, 2,394,550 discharges were recorded with a diagnosis of ischemic stroke, including 39,150 (1.6%) treated with mechanical thrombectomy. The number and proportion of stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy annually rose from 4,910/452,905 (1.1%) in 2012 to 11,860/509,215 (2.3%) in 2016. The largest annual increase occurred between 2014, when 6,460 stroke patients were treated with thrombectomy, and 2015, when 10,280 underwent thrombectomy. Comparing the pre (Q1 2012 - Q4 2014) and post (Q4 2015 – Q4 2016) RCT/Guideline epochs, in addition to increased thrombectomy rates, the proportion of thrombectomy patients who received IV-tPA decreased (46% to 24%, p<0.001). Rates of mild disability outcome increased from 16% to 20% (p<0.001), while mortality decreased from 15% to 13% (p=0.01). The odds of pulmonary embolism, urinary tract infection, and pneumonia decreased, while intracerebral hemorrhage, septicemia, deep venous thrombosis, shock, and cardiac arrest were unchanged. ConclusionIn the United States, thrombectomy treatment for acute ischemic stroke increased rapidly and substantially in frequency following publication of positive clinical trials and US guideline update in 2015, accompanied by improved functional outcomes and reduced peri-procedural mortality.

2019 Update of the Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines of Stroke for Endovascular Recanalization Therapy in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke

Endovascular recanalization therapy (ERT) has been a standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large artery occlusion (LAO) within 6 hours after onset since the five landmark ERT trials up to 2015 demonstrated its clinical benefit. Recently, two randomized clinical trials demonstrated that ERT, even in the late time window up to 16 hours or 24 hours after last known normal time, improved the outcome of patients who had a target mismatch defined as either clinical-core mismatch or perfusion-core mismatch, which prompted the update of national guidelines in several countries. Accordingly, to provide evidence-based and up-to-date recommendations for ERT in patients with acute LAO in Korea, the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the Korean Stroke Society decided to revise the previous Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines of Stroke for ERT. For this update, the members of the writing group were appointed by the Korean Stroke Society and the Korean Society of Interventional Neuroradiology. After thorough reviewing the updated evidence from two recent trials and relevant literature, the writing members revised recommendations, for which formal consensus was achieved by convening an expert panel composed of 45 experts from the participating academic societies. The current guidelines are intended to help healthcare providers, patients, and their caregivers make their well-informed decisions and to improve the quality of care regarding ERT. The ultimate decision for ERT in a particular patient must be made in light of circumstances specific to that patient.

Hospital variance in neoadjuvant rectal cancer treatment and the influence of a national guideline update: Results of a nationwide population-based study

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to examine the hospital variation in neoadjuvant treatment of rectal cancer according to the different risk groups (low-, intermediate- and high-risk) and evaluate the influence on survival. Materials and methodsPatients with non-metastasized rectal cancer diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The observed and case-mix adjusted distribution of the different neoadjuvant treatment schemes (none, radiotherapy (RT), chemoradiotherapy (CRT)) by hospital of diagnosis were generated for each risk group in the cohorts before and after the national guideline update of 2014. ResultsA total of 25,306 patients were included and after case-mix adjustment, hospital of diagnosis was found to have a significant impact on neoadjuvant treatment administration in each of the three risk groups (p < 0.001). Overall survival was however not influenced, except for the high-risk group where hospitals with highest rates of CRT were associated with a better 5-years overall survival (HR 0.79; p = 0.03). After guideline revision, the rate of patients in the low-risk group who did not undergo RT increased from a median of 30.8% to 90.5% (p < 0.001). ConclusionAlthough a significant change in treatment was observed after revision of the national guidelines, a wide range of hospital variation still exists in administered neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer patients. High-risk rectal cancer patients had a better survival when treated in hospitals with the highest rates of CRT provided. In order to minimize treatment differences, further research into the causes of this variation and implementation of regionalized MDTs may be warranted.

2019 Update of the Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines of Stroke for Endovascular Recanalization Therapy in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Endovascular recanalization therapy (ERT) has been a standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large artery occlusion (LAO) within 6 hours after onset, since five landmark ERT trials conducted by 2015 demonstrated its clinical benefit. Recently, two randomized clinical trials demonstrated that ERT, even in the late time window of up to 16 hours or 24 hours after last known normal time, improved the outcome of patients who had a target mismatch, defined as either clinical-core mismatch or perfusion-core mismatch, which prompted the update of national guidelines in several countries. Accordingly, to provide evidence-based and up-to-date recommendations for ERT in patients with acute LAO in Korea, the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the Korean Stroke Society decided to revise the previous Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines of Stroke for ERT. For this update, the members of the writing group were appointed by the Korean Stroke Society and the Korean Society of Interventional Neuroradiology. After thoroughly reviewing the updated evidence from two recent trials and relevant literature, the writing members revised recommendations, for which formal consensus was achieved by convening an expert panel composed of 45 experts from the participating academic societies. The current guidelines are intended to help healthcare providers, patients, and their caregivers make well-informed decisions and to improve the quality of care regarding ERT. The ultimate decision for ERT in a particular patient must be made in light of circumstances specific to that patient.

2019 Update of the Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines of Stroke for Endovascular Recanalization Therapy in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke

Endovascular recanalization therapy (ERT) has been a standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large artery occlusion (LAO) within 6 hours after onset, since five landmark ERT trials conducted by 2015 demonstrated its clinical benefit. Recently, two randomized clinical trials demonstrated that ERT, even in the late time window of up to 16 hours or 24 hours after last known normal time, improved the outcome of patients who had a target mismatch, defined as either clinical-core mismatch or perfusion-core mismatch, which prompted the update of national guidelines in several countries. Accordingly, to provide evidence-based and up-to-date recommendations for ERT in patients with acute LAO in Korea, the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the Korean Stroke Society decided to revise the previous Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines of Stroke for ERT. For this update, the members of the writing group were appointed by the Korean Stroke Society and the Korean Society of Interventional Neuroradiology. After thoroughly reviewing the updated evidence from two recent trials and relevant literature, the writing members revised recommendations, for which formal consensus was achieved by convening an expert panel composed of 45 experts from the participating academic societies. The current guidelines are intended to help healthcare providers, patients, and their caregivers make well-informed decisions and to improve the quality of care regarding ERT. The ultimate decision for ERT in a particular patient must be made in light of circumstances specific to that patient.

PTH-016 Diagnosis And Management Of Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis: Is There A Need For An Urgent Update Of National Guidelines?

IntroductionSpontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis (SBP) is a frequent and serious complication in cirrhotic patients with ascitis. Clinical guidelines have been published by the BSG, EASL and AASLD for the diagnosis and...

PO-0689: Radiotherapy practice patterns for lung cancer after the update of national guidelines in The Netherlands

PO-0689: Radiotherapy practice patterns for lung cancer after the update of national guidelines in The Netherlands

Aspects of Therapy for Cervical Cancer in Germany 2012 - Results from a Survey of German Gynaecological Hospitals.

Introduction: In spite of the existence of guidelines and international recommendations, many aspects in the diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer are not based on validated data. A broad spectrum of different opinions and procedures concerning the therapy for patients with cervical cancer is under controversial discussion by the responsible gynaecologists in German hospitals. Methods: The present study is intended to picture the current treatment situation for cervical cancer in Germany. For this purpose a specially developed questionnaire with questions divided into 19 subsections was sent to all 688 gynaecological hospitals in Germany. Results: The response rate to the questionnaire was 34 %. 91 % of the hospitals treated between 0 and 25 patients with cervical cancer per year. 7.5 % treated between 26 and 50 and 1.4 % of the hospitals more than 50 patients per year. The bimanual examination was the most frequently used staging method (98 %); PET-CT was the least used staging method (2.3 %). Interestingly 48 % of the hospitals used surgical staging. The great majority of the hospitals (71 %) used abdominal radical hysterectomy (Wertheim-Meigs operation) to treat their patients. TMMR via laparotomy was used by 13 %. 16 % of the hospitals performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical hysterectomies. The sentinel concept was hardly used even in the early stages. It must be emphasised that in 74 % of the hospitals radical hysterectomies were performed even in cases with positive pelvic lymph nodes and in 43 % also in cases with positive paraaortic lymph nodes. The therapy of choice for FIGO IIB cancers is primary radiochemotherapy (RCTX) in 21 % of the hospitals; operative staging followed by radiochemotherapy in 24 % and treatment by radical hysterectomy followed by adjuvant RCTX was employed in this situation by 46 % of the hospitals. In 15-97 % of the hospitals for node-negative and in sano resected patients in stage pT1B1/1B2 after radical hysterectomy, an adjuvant RCTX is recommended when further risk factors exist (LVSI, tumour > 4 cm, age < 40years, adenocarcinoma, S3). Conclusion: A broad spectrum of differing staging and therapy concepts is in use for patients with cervical cancer in Germany. A standardisation of therapy is needed. An update of national guidelines could help to achieve more transparency and a standardisation of treatment for patients with cervical cancer.