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

• Published in: Stroke (1970) Vol. 49; no. 11; pp. 2699 - 2705
• Main Authors: Baek, Jang-Hyun, Kim, Byung Moon, Heo, Ji Hoe, Kim, Dong Joon, Nam, Hyo Suk, Kim, Young Dae
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Heart Association, Inc 01.11.2018
• Subjects: intracranial atherosclerosis; endovascular treatment; stroke; treatment outcome; stents
• ISSN: 0039-2499; 1524-4628; 1524-4628
• DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022327

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.