Clinical Study of Symptomatic Nonacute Intracranial Large Arterial Occlusion with Endovascular Recanalization

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 Medicine
Bitang Dan, Bifeng Zhu, Wei Zeng, Tao Peng, Jing Liu, Xin Li, Junjian Zhang
{"title":"Clinical Study of Symptomatic Nonacute Intracranial Large Arterial Occlusion with Endovascular Recanalization","authors":"Bitang Dan, Bifeng Zhu, Wei Zeng, Tao Peng, Jing Liu, Xin Li, Junjian Zhang","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1774791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives This study reported a single-center clinical trial of endovascular treatment for symptomatic nonacute occlusion of the intracranial large artery (NA-ILAO). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and clinical effect of simple balloon dilatation and stent implantation. Methods The patients diagnosed with symptomatic NA-ILAO were enrolled. A total of 40 cases were included in this study. While recanalization failed in 4 patients, it was successful in 36 patients, who were then divided into two groups for further analysis: balloon dilatation group (n = 24) and stent implantation group (n = 12). The perioperative complications, clinical outcome, and follow-up results were analyzed. Results Perioperative complications in the stent implantation group were significantly higher than those in the simple balloon dilatation group (p < 0.05). There were 21 and 10 cases of 90-day good clinical outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS] ≤ 2) in the balloon and stent groups, respectively (p = 0.518). All patients with successful recanalization underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or CT angiography (CTA) during an average follow-up of 14 months. There were two cases of restenosis in the balloon dilatation group and one in the stent implantation group (p = 1.000). There were two cases of re-occlusion in the stent group and none in the balloon dilatation group (p < 0.001). Stroke recurred in two cases in the stent group and in one case in the simple balloon dilatation group (p = 0.013). Conclusion Endovascular recanalization is safe and feasible for patients with symptomatic NA-ILAO. Compared with stent implantation, simple balloon dilation may be a better recanalization method, but larger randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm it.","PeriodicalId":16513,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1774791","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Objectives This study reported a single-center clinical trial of endovascular treatment for symptomatic nonacute occlusion of the intracranial large artery (NA-ILAO). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and clinical effect of simple balloon dilatation and stent implantation. Methods The patients diagnosed with symptomatic NA-ILAO were enrolled. A total of 40 cases were included in this study. While recanalization failed in 4 patients, it was successful in 36 patients, who were then divided into two groups for further analysis: balloon dilatation group (n = 24) and stent implantation group (n = 12). The perioperative complications, clinical outcome, and follow-up results were analyzed. Results Perioperative complications in the stent implantation group were significantly higher than those in the simple balloon dilatation group (p < 0.05). There were 21 and 10 cases of 90-day good clinical outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS] ≤ 2) in the balloon and stent groups, respectively (p = 0.518). All patients with successful recanalization underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA) or CT angiography (CTA) during an average follow-up of 14 months. There were two cases of restenosis in the balloon dilatation group and one in the stent implantation group (p = 1.000). There were two cases of re-occlusion in the stent group and none in the balloon dilatation group (p < 0.001). Stroke recurred in two cases in the stent group and in one case in the simple balloon dilatation group (p = 0.013). Conclusion Endovascular recanalization is safe and feasible for patients with symptomatic NA-ILAO. Compared with stent implantation, simple balloon dilation may be a better recanalization method, but larger randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm it.
症状性非急性颅内大动脉闭塞伴血管内再通的临床研究
摘要目的本研究报道了一项单中心血管内治疗症状性非急性颅内大动脉闭塞(NA-ILAO)的临床试验。本研究的目的是评价单纯球囊扩张支架植入术的安全性、可行性和临床效果。方法入选诊断为症状性NA-ILAO的患者。本研究共纳入40例。4例患者再通失败,36例患者再通成功,将患者分为球囊扩张组(n = 24)和支架植入组(n = 12)进行进一步分析。分析围手术期并发症、临床结局及随访结果。结果支架置入术组围手术期并发症明显高于单纯球囊扩张组(p <0.05)。球囊组和支架组90天临床预后良好(改良Rankin评分[mRS]≤2)的分别为21例和10例(p = 0.518)。所有成功再通的患者在平均14个月的随访期间接受了数字减影血管造影(DSA)或CT血管造影(CTA)。球囊扩张组2例再狭窄,支架置入组1例再狭窄(p = 1.000)。支架组2例再闭塞,球囊扩张组无再闭塞(p <0.001)。支架组卒中复发2例,单纯球囊扩张组卒中复发1例(p = 0.013)。结论血管内再通术治疗症状性NA-ILAO是安全可行的。与支架植入相比,简单球囊扩张可能是一种更好的再通方法,但需要更大规模的随机对照试验来证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
516
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B: Skull Base (JNLS B) is a major publication from the world''s leading publisher in neurosurgery. JNLS B currently serves as the official organ of several national and international neurosurgery and skull base societies. JNLS B is a peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles, and technical notes covering all aspects of neurological surgery. The focus of JNLS B includes microsurgery as well as the latest minimally invasive techniques, such as stereotactic-guided surgery, endoscopy, and endovascular procedures. JNLS B is devoted to the techniques and procedures of skull base surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信