Functional and Safety Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting and Mechanical Thrombectomy for Large Vessel Occlusion Ischemic Stroke With Tandem Lesions.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2023
01 03 2023
Historique:
entrez:
1
3
2023
pubmed:
2
3
2023
medline:
4
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Approximately 10% to 20% of large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes involve tandem lesions (TLs), defined as concomitant intracranial LVO and stenosis or occlusion of the cervical internal carotid artery. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) may benefit patients with TLs; however, optimal management and procedural strategy of the cervical lesion remain unclear. To evaluate the association of carotid artery stenting (CAS) vs no stenting and medical management with functional and safety outcomes among patients with TL-LVOs. This cross-sectional study included consecutive patients with acute anterior circulation TLs admitted across 17 stroke centers in the US and Spain between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. Data analysis was performed from August 2021 to February 2022. Inclusion criteria were age of 18 years or older, endovascular therapy for intracranial occlusion, and presence of extracranial internal carotid artery stenosis (>50%) demonstrated on pre-MT computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, or digital subtraction angiography. Patients with TLs were divided into CAS vs nonstenting groups. Primary clinical and safety outcomes were 90-day functional independence measured by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), respectively. Secondary outcomes were successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score ≥2b), discharge mRS score, ordinal mRS score, and mortality at 90 days. Of 685 patients, 623 (mean [SD] age, 67 [12.2] years; 406 [65.2%] male) were included in the analysis, of whom 363 (58.4%) were in the CAS group and 260 (41.6%) were in the nonstenting group. The CAS group had a lower proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation (38 [10.6%] vs 49 [19.2%], P = .002), a higher proportion of preprocedural degree of cervical stenosis on digital subtraction angiography (90%-99%: 107 [32.2%] vs 42 [20.5%], P < .001) and atherosclerotic disease (296 [82.0%] vs 194 [74.6%], P = .003), a lower median (IQR) National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (15 [10-19] vs 17 [13-21], P < .001), and similar rates of intravenous thrombolysis and stroke time metrics when compared with the nonstenting group. After adjustment for confounders, the odds of favorable functional outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.20-2.40; P = .007), favorable shift in mRS scores (aOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.02-2.10; P = .04), and successful reperfusion (aOR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.02-3.60; P = .002) were significantly higher for the CAS group compared with the nonstenting group. Both groups had similar odds of sICH (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.46-2.40; P = .87) and 90-day mortality (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20; P = .27). No heterogeneity was noted for 90-day functional outcome and sICH in prespecified subgroups. In this multicenter, international cross-sectional study, CAS of the cervical lesion during MT was associated with improvement in functional outcomes and reperfusion rates without an increased risk of sICH and mortality in patients with TLs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36857054
pii: 2801836
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0736
pmc: PMC9978940
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e230736Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS121154
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R21 NS130423
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM139776
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Références
Stroke. 2019 Aug;50(8):2250–2252
pubmed: 31577899
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Nov 29;58(23):2363-9
pubmed: 22115640
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 Aug;10(8):721-728
pubmed: 29523749
Front Neurol. 2018 Nov 20;9:940
pubmed: 30524353
Arch Neurol. 2012 Dec;69(12):1615-20
pubmed: 23007611
J Neurol. 2015 Dec;262(12):2668-75
pubmed: 26345413
Neurosurg Focus. 2021 Jul;51(1):E6
pubmed: 34198245
Stroke. 2019 Feb;50(2):428-433
pubmed: 30580729
Front Neurol. 2019 Feb 27;10:127
pubmed: 30873105
N Engl J Med. 1998 Nov 12;339(20):1415-25
pubmed: 9811916
Stroke. 2006 Sep;37(9):2301-5
pubmed: 16888266
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Jul;41(7):1142-1148
pubmed: 32499251
Front Neurol. 2019 Feb 19;10:102
pubmed: 30837934
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Jan 18;11(2):e022335
pubmed: 35023353
Interv Neurol. 2020 Jan;8(2-6):92-100
pubmed: 32508890
J Neurointerv Surg. 2015 Mar;7(3):170-5
pubmed: 25387730
Bull World Health Organ. 2007 Nov;85(11):867-72
pubmed: 18038077
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Stroke. 2013 Sep;44(9):2650-63
pubmed: 23920012
Stroke. 2017 Nov;48(11):3145-3148
pubmed: 28974628
Stroke. 2011 Dec;42(12):3484-90
pubmed: 21980205
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jul 9;11(13):1290-1299
pubmed: 29976365
Stroke. 2005 Nov;36(11):2426-30
pubmed: 16224082
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Dec;13(12):1106-1110
pubmed: 33323501
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2019 Dec;60(6):693-702
pubmed: 29363895
J Neurointerv Surg. 2018 May;10(5):429-433
pubmed: 29021311
N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 25;359(13):1317-29
pubmed: 18815396