Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

Research ArticleInterventional

Symptom Differences and Pretreatment Asymptomatic Interval Affect Outcomes of Stenting for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease

M.D. Alexander, P.M. Meyers, J.D. English, T.R. Stradford, S. Sung, W.S Smith, V.V. Halbach, R.T. Higashida, C.F. Dowd, D.L. Cooke and S.W. Hetts
American Journal of Neuroradiology June 2014, 35 (6) 1157-1162; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3836
M.D. Alexander
aFrom the Department of Radiology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, California (M.D.A.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P.M. Meyers
bDepartments of Neurointerventional Surgery (P.M.M.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J.D. English
dDepartment of Neurology, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California (J.D.E.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T.R. Stradford
eDepartment of Medicine, St Luke's–Roosevelt Hospital, New York, New York (T.R.S.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S. Sung
cPathology (S.S.), Columbia University, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
W.S Smith
fDepartments of Neurology (W.S.S.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
V.V. Halbach
gRadiology and Biomedical Imaging (V.V.H., R.T.H., C.F.D., D.L.C., S.W.H.)
hNeurological Surgery (V.V.H., R.T.H., C.F.D.), University of California, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R.T. Higashida
gRadiology and Biomedical Imaging (V.V.H., R.T.H., C.F.D., D.L.C., S.W.H.)
hNeurological Surgery (V.V.H., R.T.H., C.F.D.), University of California, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C.F. Dowd
gRadiology and Biomedical Imaging (V.V.H., R.T.H., C.F.D., D.L.C., S.W.H.)
hNeurological Surgery (V.V.H., R.T.H., C.F.D.), University of California, San Francisco, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
D.L. Cooke
gRadiology and Biomedical Imaging (V.V.H., R.T.H., C.F.D., D.L.C., S.W.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
S.W. Hetts
gRadiology and Biomedical Imaging (V.V.H., R.T.H., C.F.D., D.L.C., S.W.H.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Different types of symptomatic intracranial stenosis may respond differently to interventional therapy. We investigated symptomatic and pathophysiologic factors that may influence clinical outcomes of patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease who were treated with stents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients treated with stents for intracranial atherosclerosis at 4 centers. Patient demographics and comorbidities, lesion features, treatment features, and preprocedural and postprocedural functional status were noted. χ2 univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess technical results and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS: One hundred forty-two lesions in 131 patients were analyzed. Lesions causing hypoperfusion ischemic symptoms were associated with fewer strokes by last contact [χ2 (1, n = 63) = 5.41, P = .019]. Nonhypoperfusion lesions causing symptoms during the 14 days before treatment had more strokes by last contact [χ2 (1, n = 136), 4.21, P = .047]. Patients treated with stents designed for intracranial deployment were more likely to have had a stroke by last contact (OR, 4.63; P = .032), and patients treated with percutaneous balloon angioplasty in addition to deployment of a self-expanding stent were less likely to be stroke free at point of last contact (OR, 0.60; P = .034).

CONCLUSIONS: More favorable outcomes may occur after stent placement for lesions causing hypoperfusion symptoms and when delaying stent placement 7–14 days after most recent symptoms for lesions suspected to cause embolic disease or perforator ischemia. Angioplasty performed in addition to self-expanding stent deployment may lead to worse outcomes, as may use of self-expanding stents rather than balloon-mounted stents.

ABBREVIATIONS:

BMS
balloon-mounted stent
ICAD
intracranial atherosclerotic disease
PTA
percutaneous transluminal angioplasty
SES
self-expanding stent

Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) causes considerable morbidity and mortality, accounting for up to one-third of ischemic strokes in some series, particularly in certain populations.1⇓–3 Some lesions prove recalcitrant to first-line medical management, and, in recent decades, endovascular treatments have emerged and evolved as complementary therapies.4,5 Early series demonstrated technical feasibility and acceptable safety for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and then stent placement of lesions in ICAD.5⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–17 Initially, intracranial procedures were performed with devices designed and approved for coronary interventions, with subsequent release of angioplasty balloons specifically engineered for intracranial use.5,12,17⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–33 In 2005, the Wingspan stent system with Gateway PTA balloon catheter (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Michigan) became the first stent approved for treatment of ICAD in the United States.5,12,18⇓⇓⇓–22,25,34 Numerous studies reported progressively improved outcomes and low complication rates, but randomized data proving efficacy were lacking.5,12,18,20,24,25,35,36 In 2011, enrollment in the first randomized, controlled trial to evaluate stent placement versus medical management of ICAD, the Stent placement and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) trial, was halted early due to high complication rates in the stent placement group as compared with the medical management group.4

The results of SAMMPRIS have elicited strong responses from both proponents and detractors of stent placement, with clinical decisions now changing.5 This current study retrospectively analyzes results of stent placement procedures performed for ICAD at 4 centers, with attention given to factors not specifically assessed in SAMMPRIS that may help guide further investigations of endovascular ICAD management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Under institutional review board–approved protocols, medical records were retrospectively examined by querying prospectively maintained procedure data bases at 2 large academic medical centers and 2 affiliated community hospitals, all of which have high-volume neurointerventional services. All patients who received stents for ICAD were evaluated. Patients with ICAD in whom stent placement was attempted but unsuccessful were included, as were patients with ICAD in whom PTA alone was planned but who received a stent to treat complications from PTA. Stent placement procedures performed during treatment of acute stroke were not included.

Information was gathered according to the guidelines of the Standards Committee of the Society for NeuroInterventional Surgery for investigations of endovascular treatment of ICAD.5 Presenting symptoms were noted and, as appropriate, further classified as “hypoperfusion” if clear evidence existed that reduced perfusion elicited ischemic symptoms. Examples of sufficient evidence of hypoperfusion etiology included reduced flow demonstrated on perfusion imaging, infarcts clearly located in a watershed distribution, and symptom exacerbation during known hypotension or on application of positional stressors. Symptoms that were probably caused by mixed subtypes were classified as indeterminate, as were symptoms that could not be clearly classified as hypoperfusion or nonhypoperfusion. Among nonhypoperfusion lesions, further classification divided them according to the duration of symptom-free interval before treatment. Ischemic symptoms were classified as TIA or stroke, the latter designated with permanent deficits or restricted diffusion on MR imaging. Specific medical comorbidities were considered present if a patient was treated for that condition; in the absence of treatment, the absence of a diagnosis was confirmed with clinical or laboratory data. Pretreatment antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy other than procedural loading doses was noted. Functional status was evaluated by use of mRS, with a value assigned by authors performing data review on the basis of descriptions of functional performance in the medical record if a value was not formally noted.

The date of stent placement procedure and anesthesia type were recorded. Lesions were classified by vessel and furthest downstream vessel segment treated, listed in On-line Table 1. Lesion features and technical success were recorded according to those reported by the primary interventionalist, if available. When not explicitly stated, these data were assessed by investigators conducting data review. The degree of stenosis was determined by use of the Warfarin-Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease Trial (WASID) technique.5,37 Stenosis length was measured, and Mori classification was assigned.38 The presence of tandem stenoses was noted, including stenoses in upstream extracranial vessel segments. Stent type, model, size, and number deployed were noted, as was performance of PTA during the same procedure. Postdeployment stenosis was measured in the same fashion as measurement before deployment. Technical success was defined as residual stenosis <50% without procedural complication.5 Any procedural complications were noted, as well as means taken to treat them, if applicable, and whether such complications were symptomatic. Complications occurring after procedure completion within 30 and 90 days of treatment were classified as peri-procedural and postprocedural, respectively.

The duration for postprocedure treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel was noted, as were use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors or any combination antiplatelet agents. Follow-up interval and duration were determined by the primary interventionalist, as was the technique of any follow-up imaging; no formal protocol existed between practitioners. The most recent date of contact was determined for long-term follow-up. For those patients with available records, the Social Security Death Index was queried to screen for deaths among patients lost to follow-up.39 In patients who died, death records were reviewed to evaluate cause of death.

End points evaluated were ischemic stroke, intraparenchymal hemorrhage, death, or other adverse event related to treatment at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, 2 years, and point of last contact. Functional status was also assessed at these time points with the use of mRS. Data analysis was performed with the use of χ2 tests and logistic regression analysis by use of IBM SPSS version 20 (IBM, Armonk, New York).

RESULTS

Between June 1998 and December 2011, 142 lesions in 131 patients met inclusion criteria and had sufficient medical records for review. All sites in this study participated in the SAMMPRIS trial, but the few enrolled patients did not have data sufficient for inclusion in this study. Patient demographics, symptom features, and lesion characteristics are summarized in On-line Table 1. Technical success was achieved in 124 (87.3%) procedures. Treatment details and angiographic results are summarized in Table 1. Procedural complications occurred during treatment of 13 (9.2%) lesions, with 2 complications occurring during 1 procedure for the same lesion. Of these complications, two (1.4%) caused neurologic symptomatic sequelae. No permanent non-neurologic morbidity occurred from procedural complications. Mean follow-up time was 949 days (standard deviation, 1187; median, 413). Follow-up time exceeded 90 days for 101 (71.1%) lesions and 1 year for 79 (55.6%) lesions. Eighteen complications occurred in the postprocedural period, of which 13 were symptomatic. Thus, overall postprocedural complications occurred in 34 (23.9%) cases, with complications causing permanent symptomatic sequelae in 16 (11.3%) cases, summarized in On-line Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1:

Treatment characteristics

No difference was noted in outcomes when comparing symptom types. Head-to-head comparison of hypoperfusion and nonhypoperfusion lesions showed correlation of the latter with new or recurrent stroke by last contact [χ2 (1, n = 63) = 5.41, P = .019]. Nonhypoperfusion lesions causing symptoms within 7 days of treatment were associated with stroke by last contact [χ2 (1, n = 136), 4.21, P = .047]. When considering nonhypoperfusion lesions causing symptoms within 14 days, the association was stronger [χ2 (1, n = 136) = 4.93, P = .032]. A trend was also noted for nonhypoperfusion lesions being correlated with complications occurring in the first 90 days after treatment, though this did not reach statistical significance [χ2 (1, n = 68) = 3.68, P = .051].

The results of univariate analysis are summarized in On-line Tables 3–9. Adverse events were more likely to occur in women and patients with diabetes, history of stroke, history of tobacco use, no diagnosis of hyperlipidemia, or no preprocedural antiplatelet therapy. Lesion features associated with death, stroke, or mRS >2 included basilar artery location, involvement of any basilar segment or petrous ICA, tandem lesions, Mori C classification, treatment with self-expanding stent (SES), and PTA performed in addition to SES deployment. Use of stents designed for intracranial use was associated with stroke, whereas stents designed for use elsewhere were associated with death.

In multivariate analysis (Table 2), patients treated with stents designed for intracranial deployment were less likely to be stroke free by last contact (OR, 0.060; 95% CI, 0.004–0.812; P = .034). This distinction did not predict rates of restenosis in this series. All 4 variables with statistically significant effects on mRS by last contact retained significance in the multivariate model. Absence of antiplatelet therapy and presence of tandem stenoses retained significance in prediction of death by last contact.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2:

Multivariate models

DISCUSSION

ICAD causes a significant burden worldwide, accounting for 10–15% of strokes in series published from the United States and up to 33% in series from Asia.3,5,40 Many high-risk characteristics were demonstrated in the WASID trial, which also established the role for dual antiplatelet therapy in ICAD treatment, findings confirmed in this current study.37,40 Since the WASID trial, standard of practice in medical management has undergone a paradigm shift toward aggressive medical management that also includes lifestyle modifications, a shift that has now been accentuated by SAMMPRIS.5

Despite advances in medical therapy, some patients' symptoms recur. It is these patients for whom surgical and endovascular therapies were initially developed. Initial operative treatments showed promise, but subsequent examination in large trials showed no benefit of surgical intervention.41,42 Early endovascular treatment typically involved PTA alone, but residual stenosis >50% was common, and many patients had dissections that required stent placement.1,5,14,15,43 PTA also carries a risk for arterial perforation and is often counteracted acutely by vessel recoil.5 Thus, development of stent placement for ICAD was pursued.5

Initial reports demonstrated that intracranial stent placement can involve serious complications, dictating that such stents be used only in high-risk patients with medically refractory disease.9,10 However, with advances in stent placement technique and technology, both technical success rates and complication rates improved.5,24,25,44,45 On the basis of data from procedures with the use of devices designed for use in coronary arteries, technical success rates appeared to plateau around 95% with complications within the first 30 days after stent deployment occurring in approximately 7% of cases.5

The Wingspan system is the first device granted Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of ICAD. Multiple series using this stent have been reported.12,18,24,25,35,36 The 2 largest nonrandomized, prospective series evaluating the device are the United States Wingspan registry, which reported a technical success rate of 98.8%, and the NIH Wingspan registry, which reported a rate of 96.7%.18,25 Restenosis >50% occurred in 27.9% and 25% of patients in these studies, respectively.18,25 In the current series, technical success occurred in 87.3% of cases, and restenosis >50% occurred in 13.4%.

The peri-procedural complication rates of the 2 registries (6.1% and 9.6%) approached that seen elsewhere for series that used other devices.18,25 Because of inconsistency in follow-up scheduling for this current retrospective study, 30-day outcomes were not consistently available. However, the comparable 90-day rate of any stroke and death was 14.8%. Excluding radiographic infarcts with no permanent symptomatic sequelae to most closely mirror outcomes measured in registries, the postprocedural complication was 11.3% in our series. By comparison, WASID did not report 90-day complications, but these end points occurred within 1 year in 15% of patients in the aspirin group.37

Given that nonrandomized series had suggested improving stent safety and efficacy, SAMMPRIS was disappointing when the trial was halted short of its planned enrollment size because of an unexpectedly high rate of stroke or death within 30 days of treatment in the stent placement (14.7%) versus medical arm (5.8%).4 No significant difference was noted between the groups beyond 30 days of enrollment, and the 1-year rate of stroke or death was 20.0% versus 12.2%, respectively.4 SAMMPRIS helped identify the path forward to identifying a role for safe, efficacious interventional treatment of ICAD, namely the reduction of peri-procedural complications through factors such as device improvement, peri-procedural blood pressure management, anesthetic techniques, and use of combination antiplatelet drugs. Additionally, appropriate patient selection criteria must be identified. Multiple factors must be considered in the design of the SAMMPRIS trial and its implications for future investigation.46

The SAMMPRIS trial made no distinction between pathophysiologic causes of symptoms. Our series shows that nonhypoperfusion lesions have higher risk of death at the point of last contact after stent placement. Additionally, multiple prior studies demonstrated that complication rates increase the sooner intervention is performed with relation to most recent symptoms, probably related to stability of atherosclerotic plaques.10,22,40,47 We posit that such concerns relate to unstable plaques that would be expected to cause primarily nonhypoperfusion symptoms, for example, embolization distal to the plaque or perforator occlusion adjacent to the plaque. In the current study, lesions causing nonhypoperfusion symptoms within 7 or 14 days of treatment were associated with stroke by point of last contact. Intervention timing, particularly for thromboembolic lesions, should be studied further. Optimum management also must be determined for lesions that do not afford sufficient asymptomatic windows. Additionally, stenosis caused by non-ICAD pathologies responds differently to endovascular treatment, shown by poor outcomes in patients without diagnosis of hyperlipidemia.

Before release of the Wingspan device, stent deployment to treat ICAD often required use of devices designed for coronary interventions.5 Treatment with a balloon-mounted stent (BMS) carries concern for dissection, vessel rupture, and recoil after deployment.1,43 With SES, wall stress persists longer than with BMS, causing more pronounced inflammation that causes neovascularization and neointimal hyperplasia.48 This may account for the higher rates of recurrent stenosis seen after treatment with SES compared with BMS, and it probably explains the lower rates of restenosis in this mixed SES/BMS study rather than the larger purely SES Wingspan studies.1,5,48⇓–50

The choice of intracranial stent has historically been driven by balancing potentially higher risks of BMS against greater residual stenosis and recurrence rates with SES. In this study, lesions treated with SES had worse rates of both stroke and death. Lesions treated with PTA in addition to SES had worse outcomes compared with treatment with BMS or SES without PTA. This could easily reflect bias, because more severe lesions may be more likely to be treated additionally with PTA. Severe lesions are also more likely to have poorer outcomes, as seen with Mori class C lesions in this series and elsewhere.1 This certainly bears further examination given that the technique used in SAMMPRIS required PTA before SES deployment. Interestingly, devices specifically designed for intracranial deployment had less favorable outcomes than other types. This may reflect reported operator difficulty with the Wingspan system.47,51,52 Future development of a BMS for intracranial use may affect results.

Limitations of this study result from its retrospective design. A lack of prospectively developed protocols for describing patient symptoms limited the analysis, particularly when attempting to discern treatment subtypes. Inadequate capture within early postprocedure periods limited direct comparison to other investigations. Although this study benefits from many years of data, it includes patients treated with methods formerly considered appropriate but not currently standard of care. Finally, all symptom and functional assessment was performed retrospectively by reviewing clinical follow-up documentation rather than formal standardized assessment, and follow-up was not standardized.

SAMMPRIS indicates that aggressive medical management should be the first-line treatment for ICAD. Further investigation must determine what treatments to offer for persistent symptoms and which patients are candidates for such treatment. Additionally, better metrics should be pursued that account for the nuances of symptoms from these lesions that can dramatically affect patients' lives but are not adequately captured by scales such as mRS.53 Randomized, controlled trials should be sought, and novel designs should be considered, such as group crossover or Bayesian enrollment, and any treatment performed outside such trials should be included in multicenter registries with standardized protocols to best evaluate outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ICAD causes significant morbidity and mortality. Treatment must begin with medical management, but certain patients will remain symptomatic despite aggressive measures. In such cases, a role for endovascular treatment remains undefined. The current study demonstrates that lesions causing symptoms as the result of reduced perfusion have more favorable outcomes after stent placement, and lesions causing nonhypoperfusion symptoms respond more favorably to stent placement when treated after a 7- to 14-day asymptomatic period. Currently available stents designed for intracranial use, SES deployment, and PTA in conjunction with SES deployment were associated with worse outcomes in the present study and warrant further examination.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures: Joey English: UNRELATED: Consultancy: Stryker Neurovascular, Silk Road Medical, Comments: Consultancy unrelated to intracranial stenting; Expert Testimony: Occasional medical legal work unrelated to intracranial stenting. Wade Smith—UNRELATED: Consultancy: Stryker*; Grants/Grants Pending: NIH; Royalties: University of California, Comments: Educational software; Stock/Stock Options: Multiple, Comments: I own mutual funds and some of these likely have investments in health care; I have stock in OrNim, Inc; Other: Ornim, Johnson and Johnson, Comments: The CEO of Ornim bought me coffee; I also serve on the DSMB for the VISSIT trial that studies the utility of an intracranial stent (J&J). Steven Hetts—UNRELATED: Grants/Grants Pending: Stryker Neurovascular,* Comments: Funding for the angiographic core laboratory at UCSF; Other: Stryker Neurovascular, Comments: In kind donation of statistical support services through Stryker Neurovascular Biostatistics division. In kind donation of organizational time by Kirsten Carrol of Stryker Neurovascular (*money paid to institution).

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jiang WJ,
    2. Cheng-Ching E,
    3. Abou-Chebl A,
    4. et al
    . Multicenter analysis of stenting in symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis. Neurosurgery 2012;70:25–30
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Sacco RL,
    2. Kargman DE,
    3. Gu Q,
    4. et al
    . Race-ethnicity and determinants of intracranial atherosclerotic cerebral infarction: the Northern Manhattan Stroke Study. Stroke 1995;26:14–20
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Wong LK
    . Global burden of intracranial atherosclerosis. Int J Stroke 2006;1:158–59
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Chimowitz MI,
    2. Lynn MJ,
    3. Derdeyn CP,
    4. et al
    . Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med 2011;365:993–1003
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Hussain MS,
    2. Fraser JF,
    3. Abruzzo T,
    4. et al
    . Standard of practice: endovascular treatment of intracranial atherosclerosis. J Neurointerv Surg 2012;4:397–406
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Lutsep HL
    . Stenting of Symptomatic Atherosclerotic Lesions in the Vertebral or Intracranial Arteries (SSYLVIA): study results. Stroke 2004;35:1388–92
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Miao ZR,
    2. Feng L,
    3. Li S,
    4. et al
    . Treatment of symptomatic middle cerebral artery stenosis with balloon-mounted stents: long-term follow-up at a single center. Neurosurgery 2009;64:79–84
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Mori T,
    2. Kazita K,
    3. Chokyu K,
    4. et al
    . Short-term arteriographic and clinical outcome after cerebral angioplasty and stenting for intracranial vertebrobasilar and carotid atherosclerotic occlusive disease. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000;21:249–54
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Levy EI,
    2. Horowitz MB,
    3. Koebbe CJ,
    4. et al
    . Transluminal stent-assisted angioplasty of the intracranial vertebrobasilar system for medically refractory, posterior circulation ischemia: early results. Neurosurgery 2001;48:1215–23
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Gupta R,
    2. Schumacher HC,
    3. Mangla S,
    4. et al
    . Urgent endovascular revascularization for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis. Neurology 2003;61:1729–35
    CrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Jiang WJ,
    2. Wang YJ,
    3. Du B,
    4. et al
    . Stenting of symptomatic M1 stenosis of middle cerebral artery: an initial experience of 40 patients. Stroke 2004;35:1375–80
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Bose A,
    2. Hartmann M,
    3. Henkes H,
    4. et al
    . A novel, self-expanding, nitinol stent in medically refractory intracranial atherosclerotic stenoses: the Wingspan study. Stroke 2007;38:1531–37
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Gomez CR,
    2. Misra VK,
    3. Liu MW,
    4. et al
    . Elective stenting of symptomatic basilar artery stenosis. Stroke 2000;31:95–99
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Marks MP,
    2. Marcellus ML,
    3. Do HM,
    4. et al
    . Intracranial angioplasty without stenting for symptomatic atherosclerotic stenosis: long-term follow-up. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:525–30
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Marks MP,
    2. Wojak JC,
    3. Al-Ali F,
    4. et al
    . Angioplasty for symptomatic intracranial stenosis: clinical outcome. Stroke 2006;37:1016–20
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Yu W,
    2. Smith WS,
    3. Singh V,
    4. et al
    . Long-term outcome of endovascular stenting for symptomatic basilar artery stenosis. Neurology 2005;64:1055–57
    CrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kim DJ,
    2. Lee BH,
    3. Kim DI,
    4. et al
    . Stent-assisted angioplasty of symptomatic intracranial vertebrobasilar artery stenosis: feasibility and follow-up results. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1381–88
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Fiorella D,
    2. Levy EI,
    3. Turk AS,
    4. et al
    . US multicenter experience with the Wingspan stent system for the treatment of intracranial atheromatous disease: periprocedural results. Stroke 2007;38:881–87
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Fiorella DJ,
    2. Levy EI,
    3. Turk AS,
    4. et al
    . Target lesion revascularization after Wingspan: assessment of safety and durability. Stroke 2009;40:106–10
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Henkes H,
    2. Miloslavski E,
    3. Lowens S,
    4. et al
    . Treatment of intracranial atherosclerotic stenoses with balloon dilatation and self-expanding stent deployment (WingSpan). Neuroradiology 2005;47:222–28
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Levy EI,
    2. Turk AS,
    3. Albuquerque FC,
    4. et al
    . Wingspan in-stent restenosis and thrombosis: incidence, clinical presentation, and management. Neurosurgery 2007;61:644–50
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Nahab F,
    2. Lynn MJ,
    3. Kasner SE,
    4. et al
    . Risk factors associated with major cerebrovascular complications after intracranial stenting. Neurology 2009;72:2014–19
    CrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Turk AS,
    2. Levy EI,
    3. Albuquerque FC,
    4. et al
    . Influence of patient age and stenosis location on Wingspan in-stent restenosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:23–27
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Yu SCH,
    2. Leung TWH,
    3. Lee KT,
    4. et al
    . Angioplasty and stenting of atherosclerotic middle cerebral arteries with Wingspan: evaluation of clinical outcome, restenosis, and procedure outcome. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011;32:753–58
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Zaidat OO,
    2. Klucznik R,
    3. Alexander MJ,
    4. et al
    . The NIH registry on use of the Wingspan stent for symptomatic 70–99% intracranial arterial stenosis. Neurology 2008;70:1518–24
    CrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. Kessler IM,
    2. Mounayer C,
    3. Piotin M,
    4. et al
    . The use of balloon-expandable stents in the management of intracranial arterial diseases: a 5-year single-center experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:2342–48
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Hatano T,
    2. Tsukahara T,
    3. Ogino E,
    4. et al
    . Stenting for vertebrobasilar artery stenosis. Acta Neurochirurgica Suppl 2005;94:137–41
    CrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Lee TH,
    2. Kim DH,
    3. Lee BH,
    4. et al
    . Preliminary results of endovascular stent-assisted angioplasty for symptomatic middle cerebral artery stenosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:166–74
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Chow MM,
    2. Masaryk TJ,
    3. Woo HH,
    4. et al
    . Stent-assisted angioplasty of intracranial vertebrobasilar atherosclerosis: midterm analysis of clinical and radiologic predictors of neurological morbidity and mortality. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:869–74
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Lylyk P,
    2. Vila JF,
    3. Miranda C,
    4. et al
    . Endovascular reconstruction by means of stent placement in symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis. Neurol Res 2005;27(Suppl 1):S84–88
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Boulos AS,
    2. Agner C,
    3. Deshaies EM
    . Preliminary evidence supporting the safety of drug-eluting stents in neurovascular disease. Neurol Res 2005;27(Suppl 1):S95–S102
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Abou-Chebl A,
    2. Bashir Q,
    3. Yadav JS
    . Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of intracranial atherosclerosis: initial experience and midterm angiographic follow-up. Stroke 2005;36:e165–e168
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Abou-Chebl A,
    2. Krieger DW,
    3. Bajzer CT,
    4. et al
    . Intracranial angioplasty and stenting in the awake patient. J Neuroimaging 2006;16:216–23
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Costalat V,
    2. Maldonado IL,
    3. Vendrell JF,
    4. et al
    . Endovascular treatment of symptomatic intracranial stenosis with the Wingspan stent system and Gateway PTA balloon: a multicenter series of 60 patients with acute and midterm results. J Neurosurg 2011;115:686–93
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Lanfranconi S,
    2. Bersano A,
    3. Branca V,
    4. et al
    . Stenting for the treatment of high-grade intracranial stenoses. J Neurol 2010;257:1899–908
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Zhao ZW,
    2. Deng JP,
    3. He SM,
    4. et al
    . Intracranial angioplasty with Gateway-Wingspan system for symptomatic atherosclerotic stenosis: preliminary results of 27 Chinese patients. Surg Neurol 2009;72:607–11
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Chimowitz MI,
    2. Lynn MJ,
    3. Howlett-Smith H,
    4. et al
    . Comparison of warfarin and aspirin for symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1305–16
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Mori T,
    2. Fukuoka M,
    3. Kazita K,
    4. et al
    . Follow-up study after intracranial percutaneous transluminal cerebral balloon angioplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:1525–33
    Abstract
  39. 39.↵
    1. Quinn J,
    2. Kramer N,
    3. McDermott D
    . Validation of the Social Security Death Index (SSDI): an important readily-available outcomes database for researchers. West J Emerg Med 2008;9:6–8
    PubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Kasner SE,
    2. Chimowitz MI,
    3. Lynn MJ,
    4. et al
    . Predictors of ischemic stroke in the territory of a symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis. Circulation. 2006;113:555–63
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Powers WJ,
    2. Clarke WR,
    3. Grubb RL Jr.,
    4. et al
    . Extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery for stroke prevention in hemodynamic cerebral ischemia: the carotid occlusion surgery study randomized trial. JAMA 2011;306:1983–92
    CrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Powers WJ,
    2. Grubb RL Jr.,
    3. Raichle ME
    . Clinical results of extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery in patients with hemodynamic cerebrovascular disease. J Neurosurg 1989;70:61–67
    CrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Nguyen TN,
    2. Zaidat OO,
    3. Gupta R,
    4. et al
    . Balloon angioplasty for intracranial atherosclerotic disease periprocedural risks and short-term outcomes in a multicenter study. Stroke 2011;42:107–11
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Chamczuk AJ,
    2. Ogilvy CS,
    3. Snyder KV,
    4. et al
    . Elective stenting for intracranial stenosis under conscious sedation. Neurosurgery 2010;67:1189–93
    CrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Samaniego EA,
    2. Hetzel S,
    3. Thirunarayanan S,
    4. et al
    . Outcome of symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease. Stroke 2009;40:2983–87
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Patel RD,
    2. Saver JL
    . Evolution of reperfusion therapies for acute brain and acute myocardial ischemia: a systematic, comparative analysis. Stroke 2013;44:94–98
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Tarr RW,
    2. Albuquerque F,
    3. Hirsh J,
    4. et al
    . The SAMMPRIS trial: the end or just the beginning. J Neurointerv Surg 2011;3:310–11
    FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Shofti R,
    2. Tio F,
    3. Beyar R
    . Neointimal vascularization and intimal thickening in response to self-expanding stents: a swine model. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 2004;6:61–67
    PubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Fiorella D,
    2. Chow MM,
    3. Anderson M,
    4. et al
    . A 7-year experience with balloon-mounted coronary stents for the treatment of symptomatic vertebrobasilar intracranial atheromatous disease. Neurosurgery 2007;61:236–42
    CrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Groschel K,
    2. Schnaudigel S,
    3. Pilgram SM,
    4. et al
    . A systematic review on outcome after stenting for intracranial atherosclerosis. Stroke 2009;40:e340–347
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Yu SC,
    2. Leung TW,
    3. Lee KT,
    4. et al
    . Learning curve of Wingspan stenting for intracranial atherosclerosis: single-center experience of 95 consecutive patients. J Neurointerv Surg 2014;6:212–18
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. Rahme RJ,
    2. Aoun SG,
    3. Batjer HH,
    4. et al
    . SAMMPRIS: end of intracranial stenting for atherosclerosis or back to the drawing board? Neurosurgery 2011;69:N16–N18
    PubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Rasmussen PA
    . Stroke outcome measures: a tale of two trials. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5:393–94
    FREE Full Text
  • Received May 21, 2013.
  • Accepted after revision October 17, 2013.
  • © 2014 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 35 (6)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 35, Issue 6
1 Jun 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Symptom Differences and Pretreatment Asymptomatic Interval Affect Outcomes of Stenting for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
M.D. Alexander, P.M. Meyers, J.D. English, T.R. Stradford, S. Sung, W.S Smith, V.V. Halbach, R.T. Higashida, C.F. Dowd, D.L. Cooke, S.W. Hetts
Symptom Differences and Pretreatment Asymptomatic Interval Affect Outcomes of Stenting for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jun 2014, 35 (6) 1157-1162; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3836

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Symptom Differences and Pretreatment Asymptomatic Interval Affect Outcomes of Stenting for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease
M.D. Alexander, P.M. Meyers, J.D. English, T.R. Stradford, S. Sung, W.S Smith, V.V. Halbach, R.T. Higashida, C.F. Dowd, D.L. Cooke, S.W. Hetts
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jun 2014, 35 (6) 1157-1162; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3836
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Factors associated with perforator stroke after selective basilar artery angioplasty or stenting
  • Vessel wall imaging for intracranial vascular disease evaluation
  • Lesion location, stability, and pretreatment management: factors affecting outcomes of endovascular treatment for vertebrobasilar atherosclerosis
  • Lesion stability characteristics outperform degree of stenosis in predicting outcomes following stenting for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis
  • Crossref (13)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Unique Features of Ethnic Mongolian Gut Microbiome revealed by metagenomic analysis
    Wenjun Liu, Jiachao Zhang, Chunyan Wu, Shunfeng Cai, Weiqiang Huang, Jing Chen, Xiaoxia Xi, Zebin Liang, Qiangchuan Hou, Bin Zhou, Nan Qin, Heping Zhang
    Scientific Reports 2016 6 1
  • Vessel wall imaging for intracranial vascular disease evaluation
    Mahmud Mossa-Basha, Matthew Alexander, Santhosh Gaddikeri, Chun Yuan, Dheeraj Gandhi
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2016 8 11
  • Ex-vivo imaging and plaque type classification of intracranial atherosclerotic plaque using high resolution MRI
    Yuanliang Jiang, Chengcheng Zhu, Wenjia Peng, Andrew J. Degnan, Luguang Chen, Xinrui Wang, Qi Liu, Yang Wang, Zhenzhen Xiang, Zhongzhao Teng, David Saloner, Jianping Lu
    Atherosclerosis 2016 249
  • Monosodium glutamate induces limited modulation in gut microbiota
    Qiannan Peng, Dongxue Huo, Chenchen Ma, Shuaiming Jiang, Linsong Wang, Jiachao Zhang
    Journal of Functional Foods 2018 49
  • Factors associated with perforator stroke after selective basilar artery angioplasty or stenting
    Baixue Jia, David S Liebeskind, Ning Ma, Feng Gao, Dapeng Mo, Gang Luo, Xiaobing Li, Xiaojie Sui, Guangge Peng, Zhongrong Miao
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2017 9 8
  • Lesion location, stability, and pretreatment management: factors affecting outcomes of endovascular treatment for vertebrobasilar atherosclerosis
    Matthew D Alexander, Jeffrey M Rebhun, Steven W Hetts, Anthony S Kim, Jeffrey Nelson, Helen Kim, Matthew R Amans, Fabio Settecase, Christopher F Dowd, Van V Halbach, Randall T Higashida, Daniel L Cooke
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2016 8 5
  • Stenting in Intracranial Stenosis: Current Controversies and Future Directions
    Arindam R. Chatterjee, Colin P. Derdeyn
    Current Atherosclerosis Reports 2015 17 8
  • Lesion stability characteristics outperform degree of stenosis in predicting outcomes following stenting for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis
    M D Alexander, D L Cooke, P M Meyers, M R Amans, C F Dowd, V V Halbach, R T Higashida, S W Hetts
    Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery 2016 8 1
  • Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Measurement During Intracranial Submaximal Angioplasty: Case Series and 2-Dimensional Operative Video
    Kunal Vakharia, Muhammad Waqas, Najya Fayyaz, Amanda Young, Elad I Levy, Jason M Davies, Adnan H Siddiqui
    Operative Neurosurgery 2020 19 4
  • Current Status and Future Perspective of Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease: A Meta-Analysis
    Zhong-Hao Li, Zhen-Hua Zhou, Xian-Jin Zhu, Wei Liu, Ya-Wen Chen, Zi-Yao Chen, Zun-Jing Liu
    BioMed Research International 2017 2017

More in this TOC Section

  • SAVE vs. Solumbra Techniques for Thrombectomy
  • Contrast-Induced Encephalopathy after NeuroIR
  • CT Perfusion&Reperfusion in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Show more Interventional

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire