4.7 Article

Interdisciplinary management of acute ischaemic stroke: Current evidence training requirements for endovascular stroke treatment: Position Paper from the ESC Council on Stroke and the European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions with the support of the European Board of Neurointervention

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 298-+

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa833

Keywords

Acute ischaemic stroke; Interventional cardiology; Neurointervention; Training requirements; Thrombectomy; Carotid stenting; Endovascular

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This position paper summarizes recommendations for training cardiologists in endovascular treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. It emphasizes the importance of patient safety and supervision by qualified neurointerventionists in the training of interventional cardiologists, highlighting interdisciplinary cooperation as key to improving the quality of stroke treatment.
This ESC Council on Stroke/EAPCI/EBNI position paper summarizes recommendations for training of cardiologists in endovascular treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Interventional cardiologists adequately trained to perform endovascular stroke interventions could complement stroke teams to provide the 24/7 on call duty and thus to increase timely access of stroke patients to endovascular treatment. The training requirements for interventional cardiologists to perform endovascular therapy are described in details and should be based on two main principles: (i) patient safety cannot be compromised, (ii) proper training of interventional cardiologists should be under supervision of and guaranteed by a qualified neurointerventionist and within the setting of a stroke team. Interdisciplinary cooperation based on common standards and professional consensus is the key to the quality improvement in stroke treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available