Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for severe stenosis of the intracranial carotid artery and its branches: Comparison of the Wingspan stent vs the Credo stent.

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread use of the Wingspan stent system for treating severe medically refractory intracranial artery stenosis (SMR-ICAS), a new Credo stent system was approved because it could integrate stent delivery within the balloon catheter. However, the therapeutic outcomes of these two systems have not been compared. This preliminary study aimed to compare the results of percutaneous angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) in SMR-ICAS patients treated with either Wingspan or Credo stents within the anterior cerebral circulation.

METHODS

SMR-ICAS patients with >70% stenosis in the anterior circulation who underwent PTAS using either the Wingspan or Credo stent system were retrospectively analyzed. We evaluated the technical success, safety, and outcomes of the two-stent systems.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients were analyzed, including 17 patients treated with Wingspan stents and 12 with Credo stents. The outcomes of the Wingspan stent vs Credo stent were as follows: technical success (16/17 [94%] vs 11/12 [92%], p = 1.00); periprocedural intracranial hemorrhage (2/17 [12%] vs 0/12 [0%], p = 0.50); silent embolic ischemic lesions on periprocedural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (13/17 [76%] vs 7/12 [58%], p = 0.42); and significant (>50%) in-stent restenosis in 1 year (4/17 [24%] vs 2/12 [17%], p = 1.00). No recurrent stroke or mortality was noted within 30 days after the procedures or during the 1-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The technical success, safety, and outcomes of the Credo stent system were comparable to those of the Wingspan stent system in the management of SMR-ICAS patients. Further large-scale studies are warranted to substantiate these findings.