RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Headache is a frequent reason for consultation between primary care physicians, emergency services physicians, and neurology specialists; however, it is not always well managed. The Andalusian Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group (SANCE) aimed to analyse headache management at different levels of care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study with data gathered through a retrospective survey in July 2019. Participants completed a series of structured questionnaires on different social and work-related variables from 4 different groups of healthcare professionals (primary care [PC], emergency departments, neurology departments, headache units). RESULTS: A total of 204 healthcare professionals completed the survey: 35 emergency department physicians, 113 PC physicians, 37 general neurologists, and 19 neurologists specialising in headache. Eighty-five percent of PC physicians reported prescribing preventive drugs, which were maintained for at least 6 months (59%), with flunarizine and amitriptyline being the most commonly used. Most patients attended at neurology consultations (65%) are referred by PC physicians, with changes in the headache pattern being the main reason for referral (74%). Healthcare professionals across all levels of care showed great interest in headache and in receiving training in headache management (97% of PC physicians, 100% of emergency services physicians, 100% of general neurologists). CONCLUSIONS: Migraine sparks great interest among healthcare professionals from different levels of care. Our results also reveal a lack of resources for headache management, which is reflected in the long waiting times. Other means of bilateral communication between different levels of care should be explored (eg, e-mail).
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Antithrombotic therapy following carotid artery stent placement with concomitant atrial fibrillation is not well-established. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of direct oral anticoagulants and a P2Y12 inhibitor at 30 days after carotid artery stent placement in patients with atrial fibrillation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed an observational single-center study including patients who underwent carotid artery stent placement with concomitant atrial fibrillation. We studied 3 groups according to antithrombotic therapy: 1) the direct oral anticoagulants plus clopidogrel (DC) group: receiving direct oral anticoagulants plus a P2Y12 inhibitor; 2) the triple therapy group: anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy; and 3) the dual antiplatelet therapy group: following dual antiplatelet therapy alone. The safety outcome was a major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding event at the first month. The efficacy outcomes were the thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or stent thrombosis). RESULTS: Of 959 patients with carotid artery stent placement, 91 met the inclusion criteria, including 24 patients in the DC group, 42 patients in the triple therapy group, and 25 in the dual antiplatelet therapy group. The mean age was 72.27 (SD, 8.1 ) years, with similar baseline characteristics. The median CHA2DS2-VASc score for each group was 6 (interquartile range = 5-6), 5 (interquartile range = 4-6), and 5 (interquartile range = 4-6), respectively. The median HAS-BLED score was 4 in the 3 groups (P = .17). The primary safety end point was 23.8% in the triple therapy group compared with 4% in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (P = .032), with no bleeding events in the DC group (P = .007). There was 1 stent thrombosis in DC group and a cardioembolic stroke in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (P = .41). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with carotid artery stent placement with atrial fibrillation, triple therapy confers a high bleeding risk. A regimen of direct oral anticoagulants plus a P2Y12 inhibitor might confer a good safety profile with significantly lower rates of bleeding and optimal efficacy.
