From the Department of Neurology, National Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea (J.-H.B.).
Department of Neurology (J.-H.B., J.H.H., H.S.N., Y.D.K.), Severance Stroke Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Stroke. 2018 Nov;49(11):2699-2705. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022327.
Background and Purpose- Endovascular treatment for acute intracranial atherosclerosis-related large vessel occlusion (ICAS [+]-LVO) is one of the challenging issues in modern mechanical thrombectomy era. We evaluated procedural and clinical outcomes of endovascular treatment for the ICAS (+)-LVO. We also compared their outcomes with those of large vessel occlusion not associated with intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS [-]-LVO). Methods- We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with acute stroke who underwent endovascular treatment for LVO. Patients were assigned to the ICAS (+)-LVO group or the ICAS (-)-LVO group primarily based on catheter angiogram. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between the ICAS (+)-LVO and ICAS (-)-LVO groups. Results- The present study included 318 patients. Fifty-six patients (17.6%) had an ICAS (+)-LVO. Recanalization was achieved in 45 patients in the ICAS (+)-LVO group (80.4%), which was comparable with the ICAS (-)-LVO group (88.5%; P=0.097). However, recanalization using a stent retriever was less successful in the ICAS (+)-LVO (28.9%) than the ICAS (-)-LVO group (93.5%). Of the remaining patients in the ICAS (+)-LVO group, 84.3% of patients required specific rescue treatments appropriate for ICAS, including balloon angioplasty, stenting, and intra-arterial glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor infusion. The rates of favorable outcomes (46.4% versus 46.9%), death, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use was not significantly associated with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Conclusions- ICAS (+)-LVO was often refractory to mechanical thrombectomy. With specific rescue treatments appropriate for ICAS, patients in the ICAS (+)-LVO group had a recanalization rate comparable with patients in the ICAS (-)-LVO. With comparable recanalization rate, the clinical outcomes did not differ between patients with ICAS (+)-LVO and ICAS (-)-LVO.
背景与目的-急性颅内动脉粥样硬化性大血管闭塞(ICAS[+]-LVO)的血管内治疗是现代机械取栓时代的一个挑战。我们评估了血管内治疗 ICAS(+)-LVO 的手术和临床结局。我们还将其与不伴有颅内动脉粥样硬化的大血管闭塞(ICAS[-]-LVO)患者的结局进行了比较。方法-我们回顾性分析了连续接受血管内治疗 LVO 的急性脑卒中患者。患者主要根据导管造影将其分为 ICAS(+)-LVO 组或 ICAS(-)-LVO 组。比较 ICAS(+)-LVO 组和 ICAS(-)-LVO 组的手术和临床结局。结果-本研究共纳入 318 例患者。56 例(17.6%)为 ICAS(+)-LVO。ICAS(+)-LVO 组有 45 例(80.4%)患者达到再通,与 ICAS(-)-LVO 组(88.5%;P=0.097)相当。然而,支架取栓器在 ICAS(+)-LVO 中的再通成功率较低(28.9%),而在 ICAS(-)-LVO 中则较高(93.5%)。在 ICAS(+)-LVO 组的其余患者中,84.3%的患者需要特定的、适合 ICAS 的补救治疗,包括球囊血管成形术、支架置入和动脉内糖蛋白 IIb/IIIa 抑制剂输注。2 组患者的良好结局(46.4%对 46.9%)、死亡率和症状性颅内出血率无显著差异。糖蛋白 IIb/IIIa 抑制剂的使用与症状性颅内出血无显著相关性。结论-ICAS(+)-LVO 通常对机械取栓治疗有抵抗性。采用适合 ICAS 的特定补救治疗后,ICAS(+)-LVO 组的再通率与 ICAS(-)-LVO 组相当。在再通率相当的情况下,ICAS(+)-LVO 患者和 ICAS(-)-LVO 患者的临床结局无差异。