+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Stenting for intracranial stenosis: potential future for the prevention of disabling or fatal stroke

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Intracranial stenosis is a common cause of ischaemic strokes, in particular, in the Asian, African and Hispanic populations. The randomised multicentre study Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for the Prevention of Recurrent stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) showed 14.7% risk of stroke or death in the stenting group versus 5.8% in the medical group at 30 days, and 23% in the stenting group versus 15% in the medical group at a median follow-up of 32.4 months. The results demonstrated superiority of medical management over stenting and have almost put the intracranial stenting to rest in recent years. Of note, 16 patients (7.1%) in the stenting group had disabling or fatal stroke within 30 days mostly due to periprocedural complications as compared with 4 patients (1.8%) in the medical group. In contrast, 5 patients (2.2%) in the stenting group and 14 patients (6.2%) in the medical group had a disabling or fatal stroke beyond 30 days, indicating significant benefit of stenting if periprocedural complications can be reduced. Recently, the results of the Chinese Angioplasty and Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Severe Stenosis trial and the Wingspan Stent System Post Market Surveillance Study (WEAVE trial) showed 2%–2.7% periprocedural complications. It is time to evaluate the role of intracranial stenting for the prevention of disabling or fatal stroke.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 62

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis.

          Atherosclerotic intracranial arterial stenosis is an important cause of stroke that is increasingly being treated with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) to prevent recurrent stroke. However, PTAS has not been compared with medical management in a randomized trial. We randomly assigned patients who had a recent transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to stenosis of 70 to 99% of the diameter of a major intracranial artery to aggressive medical management alone or aggressive medical management plus PTAS with the use of the Wingspan stent system. The primary end point was stroke or death within 30 days after enrollment or after a revascularization procedure for the qualifying lesion during the follow-up period or stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery beyond 30 days. Enrollment was stopped after 451 patients underwent randomization, because the 30-day rate of stroke or death was 14.7% in the PTAS group (nonfatal stroke, 12.5%; fatal stroke, 2.2%) and 5.8% in the medical-management group (nonfatal stroke, 5.3%; non-stroke-related death, 0.4%) (P=0.002). Beyond 30 days, stroke in the same territory occurred in 13 patients in each group. Currently, the mean duration of follow-up, which is ongoing, is 11.9 months. The probability of the occurrence of a primary end-point event over time differed significantly between the two treatment groups (P=0.009), with 1-year rates of the primary end point of 20.0% in the PTAS group and 12.2% in the medical-management group. In patients with intracranial arterial stenosis, aggressive medical management was superior to PTAS with the use of the Wingspan stent system, both because the risk of early stroke after PTAS was high and because the risk of stroke with aggressive medical therapy alone was lower than expected. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; SAMMPRIS number, NCT00576693.).
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of warfarin and aspirin for symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis.

            Atherosclerotic intracranial arterial stenosis is an important cause of stroke. Warfarin is commonly used in preference to aspirin for this disorder, but these therapies have not been compared in a randomized trial. We randomly assigned patients with transient ischemic attack or stroke caused by angiographically verified 50 to 99 percent stenosis of a major intracranial artery to receive warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) or aspirin (1300 mg per day) in a double-blind, multicenter clinical trial. The primary end point was ischemic stroke, brain hemorrhage, or death from vascular causes other than stroke. After 569 patients had undergone randomization, enrollment was stopped because of concerns about the safety of the patients who had been assigned to receive warfarin. During a mean follow-up period of 1.8 years, adverse events in the two groups included death (4.3 percent in the aspirin group vs. 9.7 percent in the warfarin group; hazard ratio for aspirin relative to warfarin, 0.46; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.90; P=0.02), major hemorrhage (3.2 percent vs. 8.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.39; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.84; P=0.01), and myocardial infarction or sudden death (2.9 percent vs. 7.3 percent, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.40; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.91; P=0.02). The rate of death from vascular causes was 3.2 percent in the aspirin group and 5.9 percent in the warfarin group (P=0.16); the rate of death from nonvascular causes was 1.1 percent and 3.8 percent, respectively (P=0.05). The primary end point occurred in 22.1 percent of the patients in the aspirin group and 21.8 percent of those in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.73 to 1.48; P=0.83). Warfarin was associated with significantly higher rates of adverse events and provided no benefit over aspirin in this trial. Aspirin should be used in preference to warfarin for patients with intracranial arterial stenosis. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Large artery intracranial occlusive disease: a large worldwide burden but a relatively neglected frontier.

              Large artery intracranial occlusive disease (LAICOD) is a common and important stroke subtype. In this commentary, we review key epidemiological aspects of LAICOD. LAICOD has emerged as the most common stroke subtype worldwide and is associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke. Hypotheses have been proposed to explain causation, which include such factors as traditional cardiovascular risk factors, high blood volume states, and genetic abnormalities. Approaches to treatment such as antithrombotic therapies, revascularization procedures, and counterpulsation devices hold promise. LAICOD poses a major stroke problem worldwide and is likely the most common stroke subtype. The etiology and treatment of this disorder remain poorly defined. International collaborations are needed to pool collective knowledge and develop definitive studies to better understand causation and treatment of LAICOD.

                Author and article information

                Stroke Vasc Neurol
                Stroke Vasc Neurol
                Stroke and Vascular Neurology
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                September 2018
                18 June 2018
                : 3
                : 3
                : 140-146
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Neurology , University of California , Irvine, California, USA
                [2 ] departmentNew Era Stroke Care and Research Institute , The Rocket Force General Hospital , Beijing, China
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Wengui Yu; wyu@
                © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

                Custom metadata


                Comment on this article