Diagnosis and management of adult Moyamoya angiopathy: An overview of guideline recommendations and identification of future research directions.

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY International Journal of Stroke Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1177/17474930241297031
Nicola Rifino, Dominique Hervè, Francesco Acerbi, Satoshi Kuroda, Giuseppe Lanzino, Peter Vajkoczy, Anna Bersano
{"title":"Diagnosis and management of adult Moyamoya angiopathy: An overview of guideline recommendations and identification of future research directions.","authors":"Nicola Rifino, Dominique Hervè, Francesco Acerbi, Satoshi Kuroda, Giuseppe Lanzino, Peter Vajkoczy, Anna Bersano","doi":"10.1177/17474930241297031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite the progress made in understanding the management and outcomes of Moyamoya angiopathy (MMA), several aspects of the disease remain largely unknown. In particular, evidence on the disease history and management of MMA is lacking, mainly due to methodological and selection biases in the available studies and the lack of large, randomized prospective studies. Therefore, the care of MMA patients remains limited to a few expert centers worldwide, and management is often based on local expertise and available resources. Over the years, recommendations or expert opinions have been written to provide guidance to physicians in the treatment of this condition with the goal of reducing the risk of stroke recurrence and long-term disability. However, there is no complete agreement between the available guidelines and recommendations due to differences in the articles addressed, methodologies, expertise, and validated approaches to literature review. This lack of consensus on the management of MMA may confuse clinicians and highlight some important issues and points. The aim of this comprehensive review article is to critically examine three recent guidelines and recommendations on MMA, discussing their differences and similarities and highlighting gaps in MMA care that need to be covered.</p>","PeriodicalId":14442,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stroke","volume":" ","pages":"17474930241297031"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Stroke","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930241297031","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the progress made in understanding the management and outcomes of Moyamoya angiopathy (MMA), several aspects of the disease remain largely unknown. In particular, evidence on the disease history and management of MMA is lacking, mainly due to methodological and selection biases in the available studies and the lack of large, randomized prospective studies. Therefore, the care of MMA patients remains limited to a few expert centers worldwide, and management is often based on local expertise and available resources. Over the years, recommendations or expert opinions have been written to provide guidance to physicians in the treatment of this condition with the goal of reducing the risk of stroke recurrence and long-term disability. However, there is no complete agreement between the available guidelines and recommendations due to differences in the articles addressed, methodologies, expertise, and validated approaches to literature review. This lack of consensus on the management of MMA may confuse clinicians and highlight some important issues and points. The aim of this comprehensive review article is to critically examine three recent guidelines and recommendations on MMA, discussing their differences and similarities and highlighting gaps in MMA care that need to be covered.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成人莫亚莫亚血管病变的诊断和管理:指南建议概述及未来研究方向的确定。
尽管在了解莫亚莫亚血管病(MMA)的治疗和预后方面取得了进展,但该疾病的几个方面在很大程度上仍不为人所知。特别是缺乏有关 MMA 病史和治疗的证据,这主要是由于现有研究在方法和选择上存在偏差,以及缺乏大型随机前瞻性研究。因此,对 MMA 患者的治疗仍局限于全球少数几个专家中心,而管理往往基于当地的专业知识和可用资源。多年来,人们撰写了一些建议或专家意见,为医生治疗这种疾病提供指导,目的是降低中风复发和长期残疾的风险。然而,由于涉及的文章、方法、专业知识和文献综述的有效方法不同,现有指南和建议之间并不完全一致。对 MMA 的管理缺乏共识可能会使临床医生感到困惑,并突出了一些重要问题和要点。本综合综述论文旨在批判性地研究这三份最新的 MMA 指南,讨论它们之间的异同,并强调 MMA 护理中需要涵盖的空白点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Stroke
International Journal of Stroke 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
13.90
自引率
6.00%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Stroke is a welcome addition to the international stroke journal landscape in that it concentrates on the clinical aspects of stroke with basic science contributions in areas of clinical interest. Reviews of current topics are broadly based to encompass not only recent advances of global interest but also those which may be more important in certain regions and the journal regularly features items of news interest from all parts of the world. To facilitate the international nature of the journal, our Associate Editors from Europe, Asia, North America and South America coordinate segments of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Impact of time from symptom onset to puncture, and puncture to reperfusion, in endovascular therapy in the late time window (>6 h). International practice patterns and perspectives on endovascular therapy for the treatment of cerebral venous thrombosis. Prehospital blood pressure lowering in patients with ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stroke recurrence after transcatheter PFO closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Advancing stroke safety and efficacy through early tirofiban administration after intravenous thrombolysis: The multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind ASSET IT trial protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1