This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 40/5/e340    most recent STROKEAHA.108.532713v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gröschel, K. Articles by Kastrup, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gröschel, K. Articles by Kastrup, A. Related Collections Angioplasty and Stenting

(Stroke. 2009;40:e340.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.

Comments, Opinions, and Reviews

A Systematic Review on Outcome After Stenting for Intracranial Atherosclerosis

Klaus Gröschel, MD; Sonja Schnaudigel, MD; Sara M. Pilgram, MD; Katrin Wasser, MD Andreas Kastrup, MD

From the Departments of Neurology (K.G., S.S., K.W., A.K.) and Neuroradiology (S.M.P.), University of Göttingen, Germany.

Correspondence to Andreas Kastrup, MD, Department of Neurology, University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany. E-mail andreas.kastrup{at}medizin.uni-goettingen.de

Background and Purpose— Angioplasty and stenting is increasingly being used for the treatment of intracranial stenoses. Based on a literature search (01/1998 to 04/2008) we sought to determine the immediate and long-term outcomes, as well as the durability of this procedure.

Summary of Review— We identified 31 studies dealing with 1177 procedures, which had mainly been performed in patients with a symptomatic (98%) intracranial high-grade stenosis (mean: 78±7%) at high technical success rates (median: 96%; interquartile range [IQR]: 90% to 100%). The periprocedural minor or major stroke and death rates ranged from 0% to 50% with a median of 7.7% (IQR: 4.4% to 14.3%). Periprocedural complications were significantly higher in the posterior versus the anterior circulation (12.1%, versus 6.6%, P<0.01, odds ratio [OR]: 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21 to 3.10), but did not differ between patients treated with a balloon-mounted (n=906) versus those who had been treated with a self-expandable stent (n=271; 9.5% versus 7.7%, P=0.47, OR: 1.15, CI:0.76 to 2.05). Restenosis >50% occurred more frequently after the use of a self-expandable stent (16/92; 17.4%, mean follow-up time: 5.4 months) than a balloon-mounted stent (61/443; 13.8%, mean follow-up time: 8.7 months; P<0.001, log-rank test).

Conclusions— Although intracranial stenting appears to be feasible, adverse events vary widely. Against the background of the results of this review yielding a high rate of restenoses and no clear impact of new stent devices on outcome, the widespread application of intracranial stenting outside the setting of randomized trials and in inexperienced centers currently does not seem to be justified.

Supplemental Material

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Trinquart and E. Touze Pitfalls in Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies: Lessons From a Systematic Review of the Risks of Stenting for Intracranial Atherosclerosis Stroke, October 1, 2009; 40(10): e586 - e587. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. C. Suh and E. H. Kim The Therapeutic Time Window Related to the Presenting Symptom Pattern, That Is, Stable Versus Unstable Patients, Can Affect the Adverse Event Rate of Intracranial Stenting Stroke, October 1, 2009; 40(10): e588 - e589. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Samaniego, S. Hetzel, S. Thirunarayanan, B. Aagaard-Kienitz, A. S. Turk, and R. Levine Outcome of Symptomatic Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease Stroke, September 1, 2009; 40(9): 2983 - 2987. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]