Mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the USA before and after time window expansion

BACKGROUND

In 2018, the time window for mechanical thrombectomy eligibility in patients with acute ischemic stroke increased from within 6 hours to within 24 hours of symptom onset. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of window expansion on procedural and hospital volumes and patient outcomes at a national level.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing mechanical thrombectomy using data from the National Inpatient Sample. We compared the numbers of mechanical thrombectomy procedures and performing hospitals between 2017 and 2019 in the USA, and the proportion of patients discharged home/self-care, those with in-hospital mortality and post-procedural intracranial hemorrhage (2019 vs 2017) after adjustment for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The number of patients with ischemic stroke who underwent mechanical thrombectomy increased from 16 960 in 2017 to 28 120 in 2019. There was an increase in the number of hospitals performing mechanical thrombectomy (501 in 2017, 585 in 2019) and those performing ≥50 procedures/year (97 in 2017, 199 in 2019; P<0.001). The odds of in-hospital mortality decreased (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, P=0.008) and the odds of intracranial hemorrhage increased (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.31, P=0.003) in 2019 compared with 2017, with no change in odds of discharge to home.

CONCLUSIONS

The window expansion for mechanical thrombectomy for patients with acute ischemic stroke was associated with an increase in the numbers of mechanical thrombectomy procedures and performing hospitals with a reduction of in-hospital mortality in the USA.

Credentialing, Certification, and Peer Review Essentials for the Neurosurgeon

Credentialing and certification are essential processes during hiring to ensure that the physician is competent and possesses the qualifications and skill sets claimed. Peer review ensures the continuing evolution of these skills to meet a standard of care. We have provided an overview and discussion of these processes in the United States. Credentialing is the process by which a physician is determined to be competent and able to practice, used to ensure that medical staff meets specific standards, and to grant operative privileges at an institution. Certification is a standardized affirmation of a physician's competence on a nationwide basis. Although not legally required to practice in the United States, many institutions emphasize certification for full privileges on an ongoing basis at a hospital. In the United States, peer review of adverse events is a mandatory prerequisite for accreditation. The initial lack of standardization led to the development of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, which protects those involved in the peer review process from litigation, and the National Provider Databank, which was established as a national database to track misconduct. A focus on quality improvement in the peer review process can lead to improved performance and patient outcomes. A thorough understanding of the processes of credentialing, certification, and peer review in the United States will benefit neurosurgeons by allowing them to know what institutions are looking for as well and their rights and responsibilities in any given situation. It could also be useful to compare these policies and practices in the United States to those in other countries.

An Assessment of Neurosurgery Resident Clinical and Socioeconomic Training: The 2013 Council of State Neurosurgical Societies Postresidency Survey Results

OBJECTIVE

The Council of State Neurosurgical Societies surveyed neurosurgeons applying for oral board certification in 2008 to assess their preparedness to practice. This survey was repeated in 2013 for a subsequent group of board applicants to evaluate the quality of neurosurgery training and identify opportunities for improvement.

METHODS

Applicants for the American Board of Neurological Surgeons oral examination from 2008 to 2013 were provided an anonymous survey focused on clinical and socioeconomic skills. Survey responses were compared with the published results of a similar survey using an inferential statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 110 of 655 neurosurgeons responded (response rate 16.8%). Significantly more respondents from the 2013 survey felt prepared to perform the following techniques: angiography, endoscopic surgery, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, kyphoplasty, and deep brain stimulation. Significantly more respondents in 2013 attested to receiving appropriate education on Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and pay-for-performance practice models of health care. However, significantly fewer respondents in 2013 felt prepared in open vascular neurosurgery techniques. In both surveys, fewer than 35% of respondents felt adequately prepared in endovascular neurosurgery techniques, medical coding, negotiating an employment contract, and issues regarding practice management and the economics of neurosurgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2013 survey suggests that candidates for board certification in neurosurgery perceive themselves to be adequately prepared to independently perform nearly all neurosurgical procedures. However, additional work is required to optimize neurosurgery training in endovascular procedures and the socioeconomic aspects of neurosurgery practice.