Clinical Study Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Artery Dissection: Clinical and Angiographic Follow-Up

Background. Intracranial artery dissections are rare and many controversies exist about treatment options. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the endovascular approach in patients with an intracranial dissection presenting with different symptoms. Methods. We prospectively evaluated the clinical features and treatment outcomes of 30 patients who had angiographically confirmed nontraumatic intracranial dissections over 4 years. Patients were followed up for 17 months, and their final outcomes were assessed by the modified Rankin Score (mRS) and angiography. Results. Sixteen (53.3%) patients had a dissection of the anterior circulation, whereas 14 (46.7%) had a posterior circulation dissection. Overall, 83.3% of the patients suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Grade IV Hunt and Hess score was seen in 32% of the SAH presenting cases. Parent artery occlusion (PAO) with coil embolization was used in 70% of the cases. The prevalence of overall procedural complications was 23.3%, and all were completely resolved at the end of follow-up. No evidence of in-stent occlusion/stenosis or rebleeding was observed in our cases during follow-up. Angiography results improved more frequently in the PAO with coil embolization group (100%) than in the stent-only-treated group (88.9%) ( = 0.310) and the unruptured dissection group (5/5, 100%) in comparison with the group that presented with SAH (95.8%) ( = 0.833). Conclusion. Favorable outcomes were achieved following an endovascular approach for symptomatic ruptured or unruptured dissecting aneurysms. However, the long-term efficacy and durability of these procedures remain to be determined in a larger series

Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Artery Dissection: Clinical and Angiographic Follow-Up

Background. Intracranial artery dissections are rare and many controversies exist about treatment options. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the endovascular approach in patients with an intracranial dissection presenting with different symptoms. Methods. We prospectively evaluated the clinical features and treatment outcomes of 30 patients who had angiographically confirmed nontraumatic intracranial dissections over 4 years. Patients were followed up for 17 months, and their final outcomes were assessed by the modified Rankin Score (mRS) and angiography. Results. Sixteen (53.3%) patients had a dissection of the anterior circulation, whereas 14 (46.7%) had a posterior circulation dissection. Overall, 83.3% of the patients suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Grade IV Hunt and Hess score was seen in 32% of the SAH presenting cases. Parent artery occlusion (PAO) with coil embolization was used in 70% of the cases. The prevalence of overall procedural complications was 23.3%, and all were completely resolved at the end of follow-up. No evidence of in-stent occlusion/stenosis or rebleeding was observed in our cases during follow-up. Angiography results improved more frequently in the PAO with coil embolization group (100%) than in the stent-only-treated group (88.9%) (P=0.310) and the unruptured dissection group (5/5, 100%) in comparison with the group that presented with SAH (95.8%) (P=0.833). Conclusion. Favorable outcomes were achieved following an endovascular approach for symptomatic ruptured or unruptured dissecting aneurysms. However, the long-term efficacy and durability of these procedures remain to be determined in a larger series

A Comparison of Stent Implant versus Medical Treatment for Severe Symptomatic Intracranial Stenosis: A Controlled Clinical Trial

Background: Atherosclerotic stenosis of the major intracranial arteries is the most common cause of ischemic stroke. There are limited treatments for severe intracranial stenosis, and stent placement versus medical treatment remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare functional outcomes of these two modalities in patients with severe symptomatic intracranial stenosis. Methods: At a single center, between 2008 and 2011, patients with angiographically demonstrated severe (70–90%) symptomatic intracranial atherosclerosis were divided into two groups: group A, which received only medical treatment, and group B, which underwent endovascular stent implant treatment. The severity and location of the stenosis was determined by digital subtraction angiography and the Warfarin-Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WASID) trial criteria in all patients. The exclusion criteria were: specific causes other than atherosclerosis, such as artery dissection, fibromuscular dysplasia, vasculitis, radiation and intracranial hemorrhage, focal neurological deficit that did not correlate to internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery stenosis. All procedures were done under light anesthesia. Technical success was defined as the reduction of stenosis to Results: Overall, 63 patients (29 in group A and 34 in group B) were evaluated and followed for a mean period of 15.22 months (range 6–25). The technical success rate was 97% in a total of 34 stents in 34 patients. There was no difference between the early (within 30 days) adverse event rates of the two groups. The median follow-up duration for the stent implant patients was 15 months (range 6–25), and for the medically treated cohort it was 14 months (range 8–25). The re-stenosis rate was 5.8% and the total number of late (>30 days) adverse events, including stroke, myocardial infarction and death, was 1 (2.9%) and 6 (20.7%) in the stent implant and medical groups, respectively (p = 0.042). The stent implant group had significantly better favorable functional outcomes according to the mRS than the medical group (93.9 vs. 63.0%). The cumulative secondary adverse event-free survival was significantly lower in the stent implant group. Conclusion: Stent implants can be considered more durable and safe for patients with symptomatic severe stenosis of the internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery, despite optimal medical therapy. Randomized, multicenter trials are required to confirm these results