Outcomes of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Intracranial Atherosclerosis–Related Large Vessel Occlusion

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Background and Purpose—

Endovascular treatment for acute intracranial atherosclerosis–related large vessel occlusion (ICAS [+]-LVO) is one of the challenging issues in modern mechanical thrombectomy era. We evaluated procedural and clinical outcomes of endovascular treatment for the ICAS (+)-LVO. We also compared their outcomes with those of large vessel occlusion not associated with intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS [−]-LVO).

Methods—

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with acute stroke who underwent endovascular treatment for LVO. Patients were assigned to the ICAS (+)-LVO group or the ICAS (−)-LVO group primarily based on catheter angiogram. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between the ICAS (+)-LVO and ICAS (−)-LVO groups.

Results—

The present study included 318 patients. Fifty-six patients (17.6%) had an ICAS (+)-LVO. Recanalization was achieved in 45 patients in the ICAS (+)-LVO group (80.4%), which was comparable with the ICAS (−)-LVO group (88.5%; P=0.097). However, recanalization using a stent retriever was less successful in the ICAS (+)-LVO (28.9%) than the ICAS (−)-LVO group (93.5%). Of the remaining patients in the ICAS (+)-LVO group, 84.3% of patients required specific rescue treatments appropriate for ICAS, including balloon angioplasty, stenting, and intra-arterial glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor infusion. The rates of favorable outcomes (46.4% versus 46.9%), death, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use was not significantly associated with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.

Conclusions—

ICAS (+)-LVO was often refractory to mechanical thrombectomy. With specific rescue treatments appropriate for ICAS, patients in the ICAS (+)-LVO group had a recanalization rate comparable with patients in the ICAS (−)-LVO. With comparable recanalization rate, the clinical outcomes did not differ between patients with ICAS (+)-LVO and ICAS (−)-LVO.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles