This version may be subject to change during the production process.

Background Evidence informing the choice between carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting for acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis (“hot carotid”) is dated and does not factor in contemporary therapies or techniques. The optimal imaging modality is also uncertain. We explored the attitudes of stroke physicians regarding imaging and revascularization of patients with acute symptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods We used a qualitative descriptive methodology to examine decision‐making approaches and opinions of physicians regarding the choice of imaging and revascularization procedures for hot carotids. We conducted semistructured interviews with purposive sampling of 22 stroke physicians from 16 centers in 6 world regions and various specialties: 11 neurologists, 3 geriatricians, 5 interventional neuroradiologists, and 3 neurovascular surgeons. Results Qualitative analysis revealed several themes regarding clinical decision‐making for hot carotids. Whereas CT angiography was favored by most participants, timely imaging availability, breadth of information gained, and surgeon/interventionalist preferences were important themes influencing the choice of imaging modality. Carotid endarterectomy was generally favored over carotid artery stenting, but participants’ choice of intervention was influenced by healthcare system factors such as use of multidisciplinary vascular teams and operating room or angiography suite availability, and patient factors like age and infarct size. Areas of uncertainty included choice of imaging modality for borderline stenosis, utility of carotid plaque imaging, timing of revascularization, and the role of intervention with borderline stenosis or intraluminal thrombus. Conclusions This qualitative study highlights practice patterns common in different centers around the world, such as the general preference for CT angiography imaging and carotid endarterectomy over carotid artery stenting but also identified important differences in availability, selection, and timing of imaging and revascularization options. To gain widespread support, future carotid trials will need to accommodate identified variations in practice patterns and address areas of uncertainty, such as optimal timing of revascularization with modern best medical management and risk‐stratification with imaging features other than just degree of stenosis.

Background: Whereas the beneficial effect of antiplatelet therapy for recurrent stroke prevention has been well established, uncertainties remain regarding the optimal antithrombotic regimen for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis. We sought to explore the approaches of stroke physicians to antithrombotic management of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods: We employed a qualitative descriptive methodology to explore the decision-making approaches and opinions of physicians regarding antithrombotic regimens for symptomatic carotid stenosis. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 22 stroke physicians (11 neurologists, 3 geriatricians, 5 interventional-neuroradiologists, and 3 neurosurgeons) from 16 centers on four continents to discuss symptomatic carotid stenosis management. We then conducted thematic analysis on the transcripts. Results: Important themes revealed from our analysis included limitations of existing clinical trial evidence, competing surgeon versus neurologist/internist preferences, and the choice of antiplatelet therapy while awaiting revascularization. There was a greater concern for adverse events while using multiple antiplatelet agents (e.g., dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)) in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy compared to carotid artery stenting. Regional variations included more frequent use of single antiplatelet agents among European participants. Areas of uncertainty included antithrombotic management if already on an antiplatelet agent, implications of nonstenotic features of carotid disease, the role of newer antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, platelet aggregation testing, and timing of DAPT. Conclusion: Our qualitative findings can help physicians critically examine the rationale underlying their own antithrombotic approaches to symptomatic carotid stenosis. Future clinical trials may wish to accommodate identified variations in practice patterns and areas of uncertainty to better inform clinical practice.

AbstractMild cognitive impairment (MCI) is characterized by evidence of cognitive impairment with minimal disruption of instrumental activities of daily living and carries a substantial risk of progression of dementia. Whereas current guidelines support a relatively minimalistic workup to identify reversible or structural causes, the field has witnessed the rapid development of various sophisticated imaging, biomarker, and genetic investigations in the past few years. The role of these investigations in routine practice is uncertain. Similarly, while there are no approved treatments for MCI, neurologists may experience uncertainty about using cholinesterase inhibitors or other medications or supplements that have been studied in MCI with limited success, particularly when patients or families are keen to try pharmacological options. Given these uncertainties, and the paucity of high-quality data in the literature, we sought expert opinion from around the globe on how to investigate and treat patients with MCI. Similar questions were posed to the rest of our readership in an online survey, the preliminary results of which are also presented.