Marnat G, Mourand I, Eker O, Machi P, Arquizan C, Riquelme C, Ayrignac X, Bonafé A, Costalat V
From the Department of Interventional and Diagnostic Neuroradiology (G.M.), Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France
Departments of Neurology (I.M., C.A., X.A.).
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Jul;37(7):1281-8. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A4752. Epub 2016 Mar 10.
Internal carotid artery dissection is a common cause of stroke in young adults. It may be responsible for tandem occlusion defined by a cervical steno-occlusive carotid wall hematoma associated with an intracranial large-vessel stroke. Intravenous thrombolysis is associated with a poor clinical outcome in these cases, and endovascular treatment has not been specifically evaluated to date. Our aim was to evaluate endovascular treatment technical and clinical efficiency in this specific occlusion topography, in comparison with treatment of isolated anterior circulation stroke.
As part of our ongoing prospective stroke data base started in August 2009 (Prognostic Factors Related to Clinical Outcome Following Thrombectomy in Ischemic Stroke [RECOST] Study), we analyzed all carotid artery dissection tandem occlusion strokes and isolated anterior circulation occlusions. All patients were selected for endovascular treatment according to clinical-radiologic mismatch, NIHSS ≥ 7 and DWI-ASPECTS ≥5, within 6 hours after onset. For carotid artery dissection, the revascularization procedure consisted first of distal recanalization by a stent retriever in the intracranial vessel. Following assessment of the circle of Willis, internal carotid artery stent placement was only performed in case of insufficiency. Carotid artery dissection treatment efficacy, safety, and clinical outcome were compared with the results of the isolated anterior circulation occlusion cohort.
Two hundred fifty-eight patients with an anterior circulation stroke were analyzed, including 57 with tandem occlusions (22%); among them, 20 were carotid artery dissection-related occlusions (7.6%). The median age of patients with tandem occlusions with internal carotid dissection was 52.45 versus 66.85 years for isolated anterior circulation occlusion (P < .05); the mean initial NIHSS score was 17.53 ± 4.11 versus 17.55 ± 4.8 (P = .983). The median DWI-ASPECTS was 6.05 versus 6.64 (P = .098), and the average time from onset to puncture was 4.38 for tandem occlusions versus 4.53 hours in isolated anterior circulation occlusion (P = .704). Complication rates and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were comparable in both groups (5% versus 3%, P = .49). The duration of the procedure was significantly prolonged in case of tandem occlusion (80.69 versus 65.45 minutes, P = .030). Fourteen patients with carotid artery dissection (70%) had a 3-month mRS of ≤ 2, without a significant difference from patients with an isolated anterior circulation occlusion (44%, P = .2). Only 5 carotid artery dissections (25%) necessitated cervical stent placement. No early ipsilateral stroke recurrence was recorded, despite the absence of stent placement in 15 patients (75%) with carotid artery dissection.
Mechanical endovascular treatment of carotid artery dissection tandem occlusions is safe and effective compared with isolated anterior circulation occlusion stroke therapy. Hence, a more conservative approach with stent placement only in cases of circle of Willis insufficiency may be a reliable and safe strategy.
颈内动脉夹层是年轻成年人中风的常见原因。它可能导致串联闭塞,表现为颈部狭窄性闭塞性颈动脉壁血肿伴颅内大血管中风。在这些病例中,静脉溶栓的临床预后较差,而血管内治疗迄今尚未得到专门评估。我们的目的是评估在这种特定闭塞形态下血管内治疗的技术和临床效率,并与孤立性前循环中风的治疗进行比较。
作为我们自2009年8月开始的正在进行的前瞻性中风数据库(缺血性中风血栓切除术临床预后相关预后因素[RECOST]研究)的一部分,我们分析了所有颈内动脉夹层串联闭塞性中风和孤立性前循环闭塞。所有患者均根据临床-影像学不匹配、美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)≥7且弥散加权成像-脑缺血半暗带评分(DWI-ASPECTS)≥5,在发病后6小时内入选血管内治疗。对于颈内动脉夹层,血管再通程序首先是通过颅内血管内的支架取栓器进行远端再通。在评估Willis环后,仅在供血不足的情况下进行颈内动脉支架置入。将颈内动脉夹层治疗的疗效、安全性和临床预后与孤立性前循环闭塞队列的结果进行比较。
分析了258例前循环中风患者,其中57例为串联闭塞(22%);其中20例为颈内动脉夹层相关闭塞(7.6%)。颈内动脉夹层串联闭塞患者的中位年龄为52.45岁,而孤立性前循环闭塞患者为66.85岁(P<.05);初始NIHSS评分平均值分别为17.53±4.11和17.55±4.8(P=.983)。DWI-ASPECTS中位数分别为6.05和6.64(P=.098),串联闭塞从发病到穿刺的平均时间为4.38小时,孤立性前循环闭塞为4.53小时(P=.704)。两组的并发症发生率和症状性颅内出血相当(5%对3%,P=.49)。串联闭塞时手术时间明显延长(80.69对65.45分钟,P=.030)。14例颈内动脉夹层患者(70%)3个月改良Rankin量表(mRS)评分为≤2,与孤立性前循环闭塞患者无显著差异(44%,P=.2)。仅5例颈内动脉夹层(25%)需要进行颈部支架置入。尽管15例(75%)颈内动脉夹层患者未进行支架置入,但未记录到早期同侧中风复发。
与孤立性前循环闭塞性中风治疗相比,颈内动脉夹层串联闭塞的机械性血管内治疗是安全有效的。因此,仅在Willis环供血不足的情况下采用更保守的支架置入方法可能是一种可靠且安全的策略。