001     285028
005     20260205155156.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1186/s42466-026-00464-w
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:41634805
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a pmc:PMC12870955
|2 pmc
037 _ _ |a DZNE-2026-00153
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Mafael, V.
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Collaborative neurocardiology board meetings for decision-making in stroke care: a real-world experience.
260 _ _ |a [London]
|c 2026
|b BioMed Central
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1770302994_11295
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a 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.
536 _ _ |a 353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353
|c POF4-353
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: pub.dzne.de
650 _ 7 |a Brain‒heart teams
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a Collaboration
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a Left atrial appendage closure
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a Patent foramen ovale
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a Stroke
|2 Other
700 1 _ |a Buck, T.
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Stengl, Helena
|0 P:(DE-2719)9003150
|b 2
|u dzne
700 1 _ |a Hellwig, S.
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Klammer, M. G.
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Endres, M.
|0 P:(DE-2719)2811033
|b 5
|u dzne
700 1 _ |a Reinthaler, M.
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Barbieri, F.
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Audebert, H. J.
|b 8
700 1 _ |a Leistner, D. M.
|b 9
700 1 _ |a Landmesser, U.
|b 10
700 1 _ |a Döhner, W.
|b 11
700 1 _ |a Skurk, C.
|b 12
700 1 _ |a Scheitz, J. F.
|0 P:(DE-2719)9001514
|b 13
773 _ _ |a 10.1186/s42466-026-00464-w
|g Vol. 8, no. 1, p. 4
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2947493-0
|n 1
|p 4
|t Neurological research and practice
|v 8
|y 2026
|x 2524-3489
856 4 _ |u https://pub.dzne.de/record/285028/files/DZNE-2026-00153.pdf
|y Restricted
856 4 _ |u https://pub.dzne.de/record/285028/files/DZNE-2026-00153.pdf?subformat=pdfa
|x pdfa
|y Restricted
910 1 _ |a External Institute
|0 I:(DE-HGF)0
|k Extern
|b 2
|6 P:(DE-2719)9003150
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen
|0 I:(DE-588)1065079516
|k DZNE
|b 5
|6 P:(DE-2719)2811033
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Neurodegenerative Diseases
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-350
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Clinical and Health Care Research
|x 0
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2025-11-06
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2025-11-06
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0320
|2 StatID
|b PubMed Central
|d 2025-11-06
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2025-08-21T14:06:14Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2025-08-21T14:06:14Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Anonymous peer review
|d 2025-08-21T14:06:14Z
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
|d 2025-08-21T14:06:14Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2025-11-06
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0112
|2 StatID
|b Emerging Sources Citation Index
|d 2025-11-06
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2025-11-06
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2025-11-06
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2025-11-06
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-2719)1811005
|k AG Endres
|l Interdisciplinary Dementia Research
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a EDITORS
980 _ _ |a VDBINPRINT
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-2719)1811005
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21