Practicing outcome-based medical care using pragmatic care trials

Most Promising Approaches to Improve Brain AVM Management: ARISE I Consensus Recommendations

Brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) are complex, and rare arteriovenous shunts that present with a wide range of signs and symptoms, with intracerebral hemorrhage being the most severe. Despite prior societal position statements, there is no consensus on the management of these lesions. ARISE (Aneurysm/bAVM/cSDH Roundtable Discussion With Industry and Stroke Experts) was convened to discuss evidence-based approaches and enhance our understanding of these complex lesions. ARISE identified the need to develop scales to predict the risk of rupture of bAVMs, and the use of common data elements to perform prospective registries and clinical studies. Additionally, the group underscored the need for comprehensive patient management with specialized centers with expertise in cranial and spinal microsurgery, neurological endovascular surgery, and stereotactic radiosurgery. The collection of prospective multicenter data and gross specimens was deemed essential for improving bAVM characterization, genetic evaluation, and phenotyping. Finally, bAVMs should be managed within a multidisciplinary framework, with clinical studies and research conducted collaboratively across multiple centers, harnessing the collective expertise and centralization of resources.

Understanding categories or subgroups and a common clinical reasoning error: the example of aneurysm size and neck width

BACKGROUND

Individualized clinical decisions are often made by considering some patient or lesion characteristics that are thought to have an impact on the efficacy or safety of treatment. For example, aneurysm size and neck width have often been determinants of treatment choices in neurovascular practice.

METHODS

We review observational and randomized data on the influence of aneurysm or neck size on angiographic results of coiling, stent-assisted coiling, or surgical clipping. New RCT data are used to demonstrate the shortcomings of managing patients using clinical judgment regarding patient or lesion characteristics. We discuss why clinical decisions should not be based on comparisons of different patients treated by the same treatment. Clinical decision making requires a comparison between the same patients treated with different treatments in a randomized trial.

RESULTS

The results of endovascular treatment of large or wide-necked aneurysms are always inferior to those of small or narrow-necked aneurysms, in observational as well as in randomized studies. However, this fact alone is not sufficient to infer that patients with small aneurysms should be coiled, while those with large aneurysms should be managed with stenting or surgical clipping. The purported superiority of clipping for large aneurysms could not be demonstrated in recent RCTs (while surgery was found superior for small aneurysms). Similarly, the superiority of stent-assisted coiling for wide-necked aneurysms was not shown in another recent RCT.

CONCLUSION

Clinical experience and observational studies alone can mislead practice. Proper clinical decisions for individuals requires randomized evidence.

Application of Medical-Nursing Integration Multidisciplinary-Assisted Surgical Wound Nursing Mode in Improving the Quality of Wound Treatment

Surgical treatment is a common clinical intervention for trauma, but postoperative pain and poor nursing lead to slow wound recovery and wound infection. Therefore, it is extremely important to select effective nursing intervention methods to improve the quality of wound treatment. This study explored the application value of the wound care model of medical integration and multidisciplinary-assisted surgery in improving the quality of wound treatment. The results show that medical-nursing integration in multidisciplinary-assisted surgical wound nursing mode can improve the quality of wound treatment and pain level in patients, which is beneficial to improving team cohesion of medical staff and satisfaction evaluation of patients.

Ethical care requires pragmatic care research to guide medical practice under uncertainty

BACKGROUND

The current research-care separation was introduced to protect patients from explanatory studies designed to gain knowledge for future patients. Care trials are all-inclusive pragmatic trials integrated into medical practice, with no extra tests, risks, or cost, and have been designed to guide practice under uncertainty in the best medical interest of the patient.

PROPOSED REVISION

Patients need a distinction between validated care, previously verified to provide better outcomes, and promising but unvalidated care, which may include unnecessary or even harmful interventions. While validated care can be practiced normally, unvalidated care should only be offered within declared pragmatic care research, designed to protect patients from harm. The validated/unvalidated care distinction is normative, necessary to the ethics of medical practice. Care trials, which mark the distinction and allow the tentative use of promising interventions necessarily involve patients, and thus the design and conduct of pragmatic care research must respect the overarching rule of care ethics "to always act in the best medical interest of the patient." Yet, unvalidated interventions offered in contexts of medical uncertainty cannot be prescribed or practiced as if they were validated care. The medical interests of current patients are best protected when unvalidated practices are restricted to a care trial protocol, with 1:1 random allocation (or "hemi-prescription") versus previously validated care, to optimize potential benefits and minimize risks for each patient.

CONCLUSION

Pragmatic trials can regulate medical practice by providing (i) a transparent demarcation between unvalidated and validated care; (ii) norms of medical conduct when using tests and interventions of yet unknown benefits in practice; and eventually (iii) a verdict regarding optimal care.