Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Balloon Mounted Stents and Self Expanding Stents in Rescue Stenting for Large Vessel Occlusion: Secondary analysis of the RESCUE-ICAS Registry.

Sami Al Kasab, Adam T Mierzwa, Imad Samman Tahhan, Shadi Yaghi, Mouhammad Jumaa, Violiza Inoa, Francesco Capasso, Michael Nahhas, Robert M Starke, Isabel Fragata, Matthew T Bender, Krisztina Moldovan, Ilko Maier, Jonathan A Grossberg, Pascal Jabbour, Marios Psychogios, Edgar A Samaniego, Jan-Karl Burkhardt, David Altschul, Justin Mascitelli, Mohamad Ezzeldin, Ramesh Grandhi, Adam de Havenon, Thanh N Nguyen, Ameer E Hassan
{"title":"Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Balloon Mounted Stents and Self Expanding Stents in Rescue Stenting for Large Vessel Occlusion: Secondary analysis of the RESCUE-ICAS Registry.","authors":"Sami Al Kasab, Adam T Mierzwa, Imad Samman Tahhan, Shadi Yaghi, Mouhammad Jumaa, Violiza Inoa, Francesco Capasso, Michael Nahhas, Robert M Starke, Isabel Fragata, Matthew T Bender, Krisztina Moldovan, Ilko Maier, Jonathan A Grossberg, Pascal Jabbour, Marios Psychogios, Edgar A Samaniego, Jan-Karl Burkhardt, David Altschul, Justin Mascitelli, Mohamad Ezzeldin, Ramesh Grandhi, Adam de Havenon, Thanh N Nguyen, Ameer E Hassan","doi":"10.3174/ajnr.A8895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Patients with intracranial stenosis-related large vessel occlusion (ICAS-LVO) may experience better outcomes with stenting compared to standalone mechanical thrombectomy. This study evaluates the safety and clinical outcomes of self-expanding stents (SES) versus balloon-mounted stents (BMS) in ICAS-LVO patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy and stenting.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This secondary analysis of the RESCUE-ICAS registry, a multicenter observational study, included ICASLVO patients from 25 stroke centers who underwent stenting. Patients were stratified by stent type (SES or BMS). The primary endpoint was 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2. Secondary outcomes included successful reperfusion, recurrent stroke, and infarct volume. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was the primary safety outcome. Inverse probability weighting adjusted for confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 194 patients, 111 received SES, of whom 61 (55%) underwent pre-stenting angioplasty. After adjustment, no significant difference was observed between SES and BMS in 90-day mRS 0-2 (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.62-1.96, p=0.75), successful reperfusion (mTICI ≥2B), or final infarct volume. SES was associated with higher odds of moderate stenosis (>50%) at follow-up (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.15-11.98, p=0.02) and recurrent stroke (13.5% vs. 1.2%, p=0.001), particularly in patients without pre-stenting angioplasty (14% vs. 1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SES and BMS demonstrated comparable safety and clinical outcomes in ICAS-LVO patients. However, SES was linked to higher rates of restenosis and recurrent strokes, potentially influenced by the absence of pre-stenting angioplasty. Further research is needed to refine stenting strategies in this population.</p><p><strong>Abbreviations: </strong>BMS = balloon mounted stents, ICAS = intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis, IPW = Inverse probability weighted, MT = mechanical thrombectomy, LVO = Large vessel occlusion, RS = rescue stenting, RESCUE-ICAS = Registry of Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion due to Intracranial Stenosis, SES = self-expanding stents (SES).</p>","PeriodicalId":93863,"journal":{"name":"AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","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.A8895","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: Patients with intracranial stenosis-related large vessel occlusion (ICAS-LVO) may experience better outcomes with stenting compared to standalone mechanical thrombectomy. This study evaluates the safety and clinical outcomes of self-expanding stents (SES) versus balloon-mounted stents (BMS) in ICAS-LVO patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy and stenting.

Materials and methods: This secondary analysis of the RESCUE-ICAS registry, a multicenter observational study, included ICASLVO patients from 25 stroke centers who underwent stenting. Patients were stratified by stent type (SES or BMS). The primary endpoint was 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2. Secondary outcomes included successful reperfusion, recurrent stroke, and infarct volume. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was the primary safety outcome. Inverse probability weighting adjusted for confounders.

Results: Among 194 patients, 111 received SES, of whom 61 (55%) underwent pre-stenting angioplasty. After adjustment, no significant difference was observed between SES and BMS in 90-day mRS 0-2 (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.62-1.96, p=0.75), successful reperfusion (mTICI ≥2B), or final infarct volume. SES was associated with higher odds of moderate stenosis (>50%) at follow-up (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.15-11.98, p=0.02) and recurrent stroke (13.5% vs. 1.2%, p=0.001), particularly in patients without pre-stenting angioplasty (14% vs. 1%).

Conclusions: SES and BMS demonstrated comparable safety and clinical outcomes in ICAS-LVO patients. However, SES was linked to higher rates of restenosis and recurrent strokes, potentially influenced by the absence of pre-stenting angioplasty. Further research is needed to refine stenting strategies in this population.

Abbreviations: BMS = balloon mounted stents, ICAS = intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis, IPW = Inverse probability weighted, MT = mechanical thrombectomy, LVO = Large vessel occlusion, RS = rescue stenting, RESCUE-ICAS = Registry of Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion due to Intracranial Stenosis, SES = self-expanding stents (SES).

球囊支架和自膨胀支架在大血管闭塞的抢救支架置入术中的安全性和有效性比较:Rescue - icas注册的二次分析。
背景和目的:与单独机械取栓相比,颅内狭窄相关性大血管闭塞(ICAS-LVO)患者支架置入可能会获得更好的结果。本研究评估了自体扩张支架(SES)与球囊支架(BMS)在机械取栓和支架植入术治疗的ICAS-LVO患者中的安全性和临床结果。材料和方法:这项对RESCUE-ICAS注册的二次分析是一项多中心观察性研究,包括来自25个卒中中心接受支架置入的ICASLVO患者。根据支架类型(SES或BMS)对患者进行分层。主要终点为90天改良Rankin量表(mRS) 0-2。次要结局包括再灌注成功、卒中复发和梗死体积。症状性颅内出血是主要的安全结局。针对混杂因素调整的逆概率加权。结果:194例患者中,111例接受了SES,其中61例(55%)行支架置入术。调整后,SES和BMS在90天mRS 0-2 (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.62-1.96, p=0.75)、成功再灌注(mTICI≥2B)或最终梗死体积方面均无显著差异。在随访中,SES与中度狭窄(bbb50 %)的较高几率(OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.15-11.98, p=0.02)和卒中复发(13.5%对1.2%,p=0.001)相关,特别是在没有预先支架血管成形术的患者中(14%对1%)。结论:SES和BMS在ICAS-LVO患者中具有相当的安全性和临床结果。然而,SES与更高的再狭窄率和复发性卒中有关,这可能受到没有支架置入术的影响。需要进一步的研究来完善这一人群的支架置入策略。缩写:BMS =球囊支架,ICAS =颅内动脉粥样硬化性狭窄,IPW =逆概率加权,MT =机械取栓,LVO =大血管闭塞,RS =抢救支架置入术,rescue -ICAS =颅内狭窄急诊大血管闭塞登记,SES =自扩支架(SES)。
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信