% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Mafael:285028,
      author       = {Mafael, V. and Buck, T. and Stengl, Helena and Hellwig, S.
                      and Klammer, M. G. and Endres, M. and Reinthaler, M. and
                      Barbieri, F. and Audebert, H. J. and Leistner, D. M. and
                      Landmesser, U. and Döhner, W. and Skurk, C. and Scheitz, J.
                      F.},
      title        = {{C}ollaborative neurocardiology board meetings for
                      decision-making in stroke care: a real-world experience.},
      journal      = {Neurological research and practice},
      volume       = {8},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {2524-3489},
      address      = {[London]},
      publisher    = {BioMed Central},
      reportid     = {DZNE-2026-00153},
      pages        = {4},
      year         = {2026},
      abstract     = {Interdisciplinary collaboration between neurologists and
                      cardiologists is needed to provide state-of-the art stroke
                      care and individualized decisions about secondary prevention
                      strategies. This highlights the need to establish working
                      structures for joint decision-making between cardiologists
                      and stroke neurologists. At present, studies describing the
                      real-world decision-making as part of such brain-heart teams
                      are scarce.We established a structured heart–brain team
                      approach with monthly virtual neurocardiology board (NCB)
                      meetings within a neurovascular network. We conducted a
                      retrospective analysis of the implementation phase of NCB
                      meetings between 2021 and 2024. We describe the structure of
                      board meetings, patient characteristics and therapeutic and
                      diagnostic recommendations.During the study period, 46 board
                      meetings were held, and 255 patients were discussed. The
                      number of referred patients increased from 32 in 2021 to 89
                      in 2024. The majority of patients were evaluated for patent
                      foramen ovale (PFO) closure (n = 189, $74.1\%,$ median age
                      56 years, $59.8\%$ female) and left atrial appendage
                      occlusion (LAAO) (n = 32, $12.5\%,$ median age 83 years,
                      $50\%$ female). Further questions centered around other
                      individual secondary prevention strategies. Among patients
                      referred to discuss PFO closure, closure was not recommended
                      in $43.4\%$ of patients (n = 82), recommended depending on
                      additional diagnostic measures in $13.8\%$ (n = 26),
                      considered optional in $19.6\%$ (n = 37) and clrearly
                      recommended in $23.3\%$ (n = 44). Patients for whom it was
                      not recommended were older, had more cardiovascular risk
                      factors and were less likely to have a large PFO shunt. The
                      main reason for the recommendation against closure was that
                      the PFO was not considered causal for the stroke $(80.5\%).$
                      Among LAAO patients, participation in a randomized
                      controlled trial was recommended in $68.8\%.We$ successfully
                      established and steadily expanded regular NCB meetings to
                      provide a platform for interdisciplinary exchange and
                      personalized stroke treatment, in particular discussion of
                      indications for interventional procedures against cardiac
                      embolism. Our approach may serve as a blueprint for similar
                      collaborative approaches. Future studies are needed to
                      assess adherence to recommendations and patient outcomes as
                      this study lacks follow-up data.},
      keywords     = {Brain‒heart teams (Other) / Collaboration (Other) / Left
                      atrial appendage closure (Other) / Patent foramen ovale
                      (Other) / Stroke (Other)},
      cin          = {AG Endres},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-2719)1811005},
      pnm          = {353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:41634805},
      pmc          = {pmc:PMC12870955},
      doi          = {10.1186/s42466-026-00464-w},
      url          = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/285028},
}