Stent design lowers angiographic but not clinical adverse events in stenting of symptomatic intracranial stenosis - results of a single center study with 100 consecutive patients.
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Comparing safety and technical success of balloon-expandable stents and self-expanding stents for intracranial angioplasty and stenting in medically refractory intracranial atherosclerotic disease in a single center series. METHODS: Fifty-four self-expanding stents and 46 balloon-expandable stents were implanted in 100 consecutive patients (mean age 64 years, 74% male) from April 2000 to September 2009. All patients had symptomatic intracranial stenosis (anterior circulation, n = 40; posterior circulation, n = 60), presenting with recurrent transient ischemic attack or stroke under antithrombotic treatment. Mean degree of stenosis before treatment was 83 ± 13%. We assessed safety, defined as any stroke or death during the procedure and at 30 days follow-up, and technical success, defined as accurate delivery of the stent at the site of the target lesion. RESULTS: Safety - periprocedural stroke or hemorrhage occurred in 11 patients treated with balloon-expandable stent, and in 14 of the patients treated with a self-expanding stent. One patient with a balloon-expandable stent died because of acute vessel rupture during treatment. One balloon-expandable stent and one self-expanding stent patient developed a severe reperfusion hemorrhage that resulted in death. Overall, the combined stroke and death rate at 30-day follow-up was 25·0% (23·9% for balloon-expandable stent group and 25·9% for the self-expanding stent group, P = 0·84). Technical success - intracranial angioplasty and stenting was technically successful in 96·3% of the self-expanding stent and 89·1% of the balloon-expandable stent patients (P = 0·31). Vascular complications were significantly less frequent in patients treated with a self-expanding stent (11·1%) than with a balloon-expandable stent (36·9%, P = 0·002). CONCLUSION: Despite a high technical success, the rate of clinical adverse events at 30 days after intracranial angioplasty and stenting is high independently of the stent design. Thus, further development of intracranial stent systems and careful patient selection are mandatory.
- SourceAvailable from: Kenneth C Liu[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction. The initial promise of endovascular stenting for the treatment of intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) has been tempered by the results of the SAMMPRIS trial which demonstrated better outcomes with medical management compared to stenting for symptomatic ICAD. We review post-SAMMPRIS ICAD stenting outcomes. Methods. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed to identify all ICAD stenting series published after the SAMMPRIS in September 2011. The type and design of the stent, number of patients and lesions, inclusion criteria, and clinical and angiographic outcomes were noted. Results. From October 2011 to August 2013, 19 ICAD stenting series were identified describing the interventional outcomes for 2,196 patients with 2,314 lesions. Of the 38 different stents used, 87% were balloon-expandable stents (BESs) and 13% were self-expanding stents. The median minimum stenosis was 50%. The median rates of technical success rate, postprocedural ischemic events, and symptomatic in-stent restenosis (ISR) were 98% (range 87-100%), 9.4% (range 0-25%), and 2.7% (range 0-11.1%), respectively. The median follow-up durations were one to 67 months. Conclusions. The management of severe ICAD remains controversial. Future trials are needed to define the optimal patient, lesion, and stent characteristics which will portend the best outcomes with intervention.BioMed research international. 01/2013; 2013:304320.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) accounts for 33-50% of all ischemic strokes in the Asian population (1) and represents an important public health issue in China. The results of the SAMMPRIS trial alarmed most experienced interventionalists in China for two reasons. Firstly, the high complication rate in the stenting arm (20% the first year) was higher than expected. Secondly, the recurrent stroke rate in the aggressive medical treatment arm at 12.2% during the first year was unacceptably high, not to mention the fact that such tight vascular risk factor control is difficult to achieve for many patients in real life clinical experience, at least in China. The experience of treating ICAD in China, gained over the last two decades, is very rich and promising. We intend to highlight these past experiences and address future trials and trends in China. We will also address our criticism of the SAMMPRIS trial design in order to better design a future trial.Frontiers in neurology. 01/2014; 5:129.