Balloon‐Expandable Stenting as a Bridging Therapy in Patients With Acute Stroke and Tandem Occlusions

IF 2.1 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
N. Rodriguez-villatoro, D. Rodríguez-Luna, M. Muchada, O. Pancorbo, M. Deck, P. Lozano, S. Boned, Á. García‐Tornel, M. Olivé, J. Juega, J. Pagola, M. Rubiera, D. Hernández, C. Molina, C. Piñana, Isabel Rodríguez, M. de Dios, J. Cuevas, M. Requena, L. Gramegna, M. Ribó, A. Tomasello
{"title":"Balloon‐Expandable Stenting as a Bridging Therapy in Patients With Acute Stroke and Tandem Occlusions","authors":"N. Rodriguez-villatoro, D. Rodríguez-Luna, M. Muchada, O. Pancorbo, M. Deck, P. Lozano, S. Boned, Á. García‐Tornel, M. Olivé, J. Juega, J. Pagola, M. Rubiera, D. Hernández, C. Molina, C. Piñana, Isabel Rodríguez, M. de Dios, J. Cuevas, M. Requena, L. Gramegna, M. Ribó, A. Tomasello","doi":"10.1161/svin.122.000825","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Stenting extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) lesions in acute ischemic stroke with tandem lesions is technically challenging. Its safety is highly debated because of the requirement of dual‐antiplatelet therapy. The optimal stenting device, timing, and periprocedural antiplatelet therapy for extracranial ICA stenting in the setting of acute tandem occlusion are still unclear.\n \n \n \n We performed a retrospective study of patients with acute ischemic stroke attributable to tandem lesions who underwent endovascular treatment during a 5‐year period receiving either conventional self‐expanding carotid stents (SX) or balloon‐expandable carotid stent (BX). BX stents were restented with an SX in the subacute phase. Primary outcomes of interest were extracranial ICA patency at follow‐up and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.\n \n \n \n \n A total of 112 patients admitted from April 2016 to April 2021 were included. Dual‐antiplatelet therapy immediately following endovascular treatment was more frequently administered in the SX group (35/39 [89.7%]) compared with the BX group (20/73 [27.4%]) (\n P\n <0.001). Patients in the BX stent group (3/73 [4.1%]) developed a lower rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage compared with patients in the SX stent group (7/39 [17.9%]) (\n P\n =0.031). No differences in extracranial ICA high‐grade restenosis or reocclusion were found between groups at 24 hours after procedure (BX: 20/73 [27.4%]; SX: 9/39 [23.1%];\n P\n =0.673).\n \n \n \n \n In patients with acute ischemic stroke and tandem occlusions, a bridging therapy including BX stents with less‐aggressive antiplatelet therapy and subsequent definitive SX stenting to treat extracranial ICA lesions resulted in a lower rate of symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation and no differences in stent patency.\n","PeriodicalId":74875,"journal":{"name":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.122.000825","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stenting extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) lesions in acute ischemic stroke with tandem lesions is technically challenging. Its safety is highly debated because of the requirement of dual‐antiplatelet therapy. The optimal stenting device, timing, and periprocedural antiplatelet therapy for extracranial ICA stenting in the setting of acute tandem occlusion are still unclear. We performed a retrospective study of patients with acute ischemic stroke attributable to tandem lesions who underwent endovascular treatment during a 5‐year period receiving either conventional self‐expanding carotid stents (SX) or balloon‐expandable carotid stent (BX). BX stents were restented with an SX in the subacute phase. Primary outcomes of interest were extracranial ICA patency at follow‐up and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. A total of 112 patients admitted from April 2016 to April 2021 were included. Dual‐antiplatelet therapy immediately following endovascular treatment was more frequently administered in the SX group (35/39 [89.7%]) compared with the BX group (20/73 [27.4%]) ( P <0.001). Patients in the BX stent group (3/73 [4.1%]) developed a lower rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage compared with patients in the SX stent group (7/39 [17.9%]) ( P =0.031). No differences in extracranial ICA high‐grade restenosis or reocclusion were found between groups at 24 hours after procedure (BX: 20/73 [27.4%]; SX: 9/39 [23.1%]; P =0.673). In patients with acute ischemic stroke and tandem occlusions, a bridging therapy including BX stents with less‐aggressive antiplatelet therapy and subsequent definitive SX stenting to treat extracranial ICA lesions resulted in a lower rate of symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation and no differences in stent patency.
球囊可扩张支架置入术作为急性卒中和串联闭塞患者的桥接治疗
急性缺血性脑卒中并发串联病变的颅内颈内动脉(ICA)病变支架置入在技术上具有挑战性。由于需要双重抗血小板治疗,其安全性备受争议。在急性串联闭塞的情况下,颅内ICA支架植入的最佳支架植入装置、时间和围术期抗血小板治疗仍不清楚。我们对可归因于串联病变的急性缺血性卒中患者进行了一项回顾性研究,这些患者在5年内接受了血管内治疗,接受了传统的自膨胀颈动脉支架(SX)或球囊扩张颈动脉支架。BX支架在亚急性期用SX重新植入。感兴趣的主要结果是随访时的颅外ICA通畅性和症状性颅内出血。2016年4月至2021年4月,共有112名患者入院。与BX组(20/73[27.4%])相比,SX组(35/39[89.7%])在血管内治疗后立即给予双重抗血小板治疗的频率更高(P<0.001)。BX支架组(3/73[4.1%])的患者出现症状性颅内出血的比率低于SX支架组(7/39[17.9%])(P=0.031)术后24小时,各组间发现颅内ICA高度再狭窄或再闭塞(BX:20/73[27.4%];SX:9/39[23.1%];P=0.673),桥接治疗,包括BX支架和低侵袭性抗血小板治疗,以及随后用于治疗颅外ICA病变的确切SX支架,导致症状性出血转化率较低,支架通畅性无差异。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信