Impact of Stenosis Degree on Outcomes of Stenting versus Medical Treatment Alone for Symptomatic Intracranial Stenosis: A Pooled Individual Patient Data Analysis.

Zixuan Xing, Tianhua Li, Eyad Almallouhi, Peng Gao, Jichang Luo, Haozhi Gong, Xuesong Bai, Colin P Derdeyn, Tao Wang, Liqun Jiao
{"title":"Impact of Stenosis Degree on Outcomes of Stenting versus Medical Treatment Alone for Symptomatic Intracranial Stenosis: A Pooled Individual Patient Data Analysis.","authors":"Zixuan Xing, Tianhua Li, Eyad Almallouhi, Peng Gao, Jichang Luo, Haozhi Gong, Xuesong Bai, Colin P Derdeyn, Tao Wang, Liqun Jiao","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>This study explores the impact of stenosis degree on outcomes of stenting compared with medical therapy alone in patients with symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients with a transient ischemic attack or nondisabling ischemic stroke, attributed to 70 to 99% stenosis of a major intracranial artery, were included. The patient cohort was drawn from the China Angioplasty and Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Severe Stenosis (CASSISS) and the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS). The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or stroke in the qualifying artery territory beyond 30 days through 1 year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 806 patients, 92 patients (11%) met the primary outcome. As the degree of stenosis increased, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the stenting group (R = -0.886, <i>P</i> = .03). For stenosis below or equal to 85%, stenting is worse than medical therapy given the high perioperative risk [13% vs. 8.0%, HR, 1.67, (95% CI, 1.04-2.67); <i>P</i> = .04]; at stenosis degree above 85%, stenting was preferred over medical therapy given the potential for better long-term prevention [14% vs. 21%, HR, 0.67, (95% CI, 0.29-1.56); <i>P</i> = .36].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with higher degrees of stenosis are more likely to benefit from stenting. Patients with intracranial artery stenosis exceeding 85% may be the focus of future studies. If innovations in interventional techniques significantly reduce perioperative risk, the critical threshold of 85% as the degree of stenosis might be reconsidered.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>CASSISS = China Angioplasty and Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Severe Stenosis; SAMMPRIS = Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis; ICAS = Intracranial atherosclerotic arterial stenosis; WASID = Warfarin versus Aspirin for Symptomatic Intracranial Disease; VISSIT = Vitesse Intracranial Stent Study for Ischemic Stroke Therapy; PH = proportional hazards; HR = Hazard ratio.</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8701","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: This study explores the impact of stenosis degree on outcomes of stenting compared with medical therapy alone in patients with symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis.

Materials and methods: Patients with a transient ischemic attack or nondisabling ischemic stroke, attributed to 70 to 99% stenosis of a major intracranial artery, were included. The patient cohort was drawn from the China Angioplasty and Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Severe Stenosis (CASSISS) and the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS). The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or stroke in the qualifying artery territory beyond 30 days through 1 year.

Results: Out of 806 patients, 92 patients (11%) met the primary outcome. As the degree of stenosis increased, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the stenting group (R = -0.886, P = .03). For stenosis below or equal to 85%, stenting is worse than medical therapy given the high perioperative risk [13% vs. 8.0%, HR, 1.67, (95% CI, 1.04-2.67); P = .04]; at stenosis degree above 85%, stenting was preferred over medical therapy given the potential for better long-term prevention [14% vs. 21%, HR, 0.67, (95% CI, 0.29-1.56); P = .36].

Conclusions: Patients with higher degrees of stenosis are more likely to benefit from stenting. Patients with intracranial artery stenosis exceeding 85% may be the focus of future studies. If innovations in interventional techniques significantly reduce perioperative risk, the critical threshold of 85% as the degree of stenosis might be reconsidered.

Abbreviations: CASSISS = China Angioplasty and Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Severe Stenosis; SAMMPRIS = Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis; ICAS = Intracranial atherosclerotic arterial stenosis; WASID = Warfarin versus Aspirin for Symptomatic Intracranial Disease; VISSIT = Vitesse Intracranial Stent Study for Ischemic Stroke Therapy; PH = proportional hazards; HR = Hazard ratio.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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