Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Bordeaux, France (G.M., F.G.).
Department of Neurology, Foch Hospital, Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines University, Suresnes, France (B.L.).
Stroke. 2020 Dec;51(12):3713-3718. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.030038. Epub 2020 Nov 10.
The efficacy of endovascular therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to tandem occlusion is comparable to that for isolated intracranial occlusion in the anterior circulation. However, the optimal management of acute cervical internal carotid artery lesions is unknown, especially in the setting of carotid dissection, but emergency carotid artery stenting (CAS) is frequently considered. We investigated the safety and efficacy of emergency CAS for carotid dissection in patients with acute stroke with tandem occlusion in current clinical practice.
We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively maintained database composed of 2 merged multicenter international observational real-world registries (Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke and Thrombectomy in Tandem Lesion). Data from endovascular therapy performed in the treatment of tandem occlusions related to acute cervical carotid dissection between January 2012 and January 2019 at 24 comprehensive stroke centers were analyzed.
The study assessed 136 patients with tandem occlusion due to dissection, including 65 (47.8%) treated with emergency CAS and 71 (52.2%) without. The overall rates of favorable outcome (90-day modified Rankin Scale score, 0-2) and successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction, 2b-3) were 58.0% (n=76 [95% CI, 49.6%-66.5%]) and 77.9% (n=106 [95% CI, 71.0%-85.0%]), respectively. In subgroup analyses, the rate of successful reperfusion (89.2% versus 67.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.24 [95% CI, 1.33-3.77]) was higher after CAS, whereas the 90-day favorable outcome (54.3% versus 61.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.58-1.22]), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH; 10.8% versus 5.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 0.79-3.17]), and 90-day mortality (8.0% versus 5.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.48-2.09]) did not differ. In sensitivity analyses of patients with successful intracranial reperfusion, CAS was not associated with an improved clinical outcome.
Emergency stenting of the dissected cervical carotid artery during endovascular therapy for tandem occlusions seems safe, whatever the quality of the intracranial reperfusion.
急性缺血性卒中伴串联闭塞患者的血管内治疗疗效与单纯颅内前循环闭塞相当。然而,急性颈内动脉病变的最佳治疗方法尚不清楚,尤其是在颈动脉夹层的情况下,但经常考虑紧急颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)。我们研究了在当前临床实践中,对伴有急性串联闭塞的急性颈动脉夹层患者进行紧急 CAS 的安全性和疗效。
我们回顾性分析了由 2 个合并的国际多中心观察性真实世界登记处(缺血性卒中血管内治疗和串联病变取栓术)组成的前瞻性维护数据库。分析了 2012 年 1 月至 2019 年 1 月期间在 24 个综合卒中中心对 136 例与急性颈内颈动脉夹层相关的串联闭塞患者进行血管内治疗的资料。
该研究评估了 136 例因夹层引起的串联闭塞患者,其中 65 例(47.8%)接受了紧急 CAS 治疗,71 例(52.2%)未接受。90 天改良 Rankin 量表评分(mRS)为 0-2 的良好预后率和成功再灌注率(改良脑梗死溶栓分级,2b-3)分别为 58.0%(n=76[95%置信区间,49.6%-66.5%])和 77.9%(n=106[95%置信区间,71.0%-85.0%])。在亚组分析中,CAS 后再灌注成功(89.2%对 67.6%;调整后的优势比,2.24[95%置信区间,1.33-3.77])较高,而 90 天良好预后(54.3%对 61.4%;调整后的优势比,0.84[95%置信区间,0.58-1.22])、症状性颅内出血(sICH;10.8%对 5.6%;调整后的优势比,1.59[95%置信区间,0.79-3.17])和 90 天死亡率(8.0%对 5.8%;调整后的优势比,1.00[95%置信区间,0.48-2.09])无差异。在成功颅内再灌注患者的敏感性分析中,CAS 并不改善临床结局。
在急性串联闭塞的血管内治疗中,无论颅内再灌注质量如何,紧急颈动脉夹层支架置入术似乎是安全的。