Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
IQWiG Arbeitspapier GA15-02: "Stents zur Behandlung intrakranieller Stenosen: VISSIT Studie und Akutbehandlung in Deutschland" : Kommentar des Berufsverbandes der Neuroradiologen (BDNR), der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neuroradiologie (DGNR), der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Neurologie (DGN) und der Deutschen Schlaganfall-Gesellschaft (DSG).
Kurre, W; Berlis, A; Diener, H-C; Fiehler, J; Gold, R; Groden, C; Hamann, G F; Röther, J; Eckert, B.
Afiliação
  • Kurre W; Neuroradiologische Klinik, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Deutschland. w.kurre@klinikum-stuttgart.de.
  • Berlis A; Neuroradiologie, Klinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Deutschland.
  • Diener HC; Klinik für Neurologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Deutschland.
  • Fiehler J; Klinik und Poliklinik für Neuroradiologische Diagnostik und Intervention, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland.
  • Gold R; Neurologische Klinik, Universitätsklinik Bochum, Bochum, Deutschland.
  • Groden C; Abteilung für Neuroradiologie, Universitätsklinikum Mannheim, Mannheim, Deutschland.
  • Hamann GF; Klinik für Neurologie und Neurologische Rehabilitation, Bezirkskrankenhaus Günzburg, Günzburg, Deutschland.
  • Röther J; Neurologische Abteilung, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Deutschland.
  • Eckert B; Neuroradiologie, Asklepios Klinik Altona, Hamburg, Deutschland.
Clin Neuroradiol ; 2015 Oct 19.
Article em De | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26480874
There is an ongoing discussion about reimbursement of stent-angioplasty for the treatment of intracranial stenoses in Germany. The discussion was initiated by the statutory health insurance companies after publication of the SAMMPRIS study results, which were in favor for medical management compared to stent-angioplasty with the Wingspan® stent system. A report (Rapid report N14-01) mainly based on SAMMPRIS was written by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) and serves as a basis for the decision-making process. This report was previously commented by the medical societies involved. Limitations of the SAMMPRIS trial and vital indications for intracranial stenting were outlined in this comment (acute vessel occlusion, hemodynamic impairment, recurrent symptoms under medical treatment).Currently also emergency stent procedures are a matter of debate. In this context a second IQWiG report was commissioned (GA 15 - 02) addressing the results of the VISSIT trial, the transferability of the results of the first report to emergency treatments and the practice of emergency intracranial stent treatment in Germany6. Regarding transferability of results the main conclusion was that there was no evidence that the results of the studies analyzed for the first report (mainly SAMMPRIS) could not be transferred to emergency treatments. From a medical professional and scientific standpoint it is inacceptable to compare outcomes of a secondary prophylactic treatment with emergency procedures. The analysis of emergency treatments in Germany based on retrospective case series with a cumulative number of 31 patients. Since most emergency procedures are performed in a clinical context and are not necessarily subject to scientific evaluation, this does not reflect current practice in Germany.The first part of this statement briefly outlines the design of SAMMPRIS and VISSIT and the interpretation of the trial results from a professional perspective. The current state of discussion regarding reimbursement of intracranial stenting is summarized. The second section contains a detailed comment on the current IQWiG report GA15-02 "Stents for the treatment of intracranial artery stenosis: VISSIT study and acute treatment in Germany".
Buscar no Google
Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: De Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article
Buscar no Google
Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: De Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article