BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We hypothesized that patients with intracranial stenosis with lacunar stroke presentations would face lower risks of recurrent stroke than those with index nonlacunar strokes, and that their recurrent strokes would predominantly be lacunar. METHODS: We analyzed subjects enrolled with an index stroke into the Warfarin Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WASID) trial. The index stroke was classified as lacunar or nonlacunar. The primary end point was recurrent ischemic stroke. Cox proportional hazard models were generated with stratification for severity of stenosis. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-seven subjects were enrolled after an index stroke; 38 were lacunar and 309 were nonlacunar. Over a mean follow-up of 1.8 years, there was no significant difference in stroke recurrence between patients whose index stroke was lacunar (7 of 38 [18%]) versus nonlacunar (69 of 309 [22%]; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.36-1.71). Furthermore, no significant differences were found when groups were stratified by 50% to 69% stenosis (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.12-2.1) and ≥ 70% stenosis (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.34-2.2). Of the 7 recurrent strokes in patients whose index stroke was lacunar, all 7 were nonlacunar and 3 were in the territory of the stenotic artery. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis, the risk of recurrent stroke was similar in patients who presented with lacunar and nonlacunar strokes, and recurrent strokes in patients presenting with lacunar stroke were typically nonlacunar. These findings suggest that the pathophysiology of these strokes is related to the stenosis rather than small vessel disease. Patients presenting with lacunar strokes should be included in trials investigating secondary prevention for symptomatic intracranial stenosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We hypothesized that patients with intracranial stenosis with lacunar stroke presentations would face lower risks of recurrent stroke than those with index nonlacunar strokes, and that their recurrent strokes would predominantly be lacunar. METHODS: We analyzed subjects enrolled with an index stroke into the WarfarinAspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WASID) trial. The index stroke was classified as lacunar or nonlacunar. The primary end point was recurrent ischemic stroke. Cox proportional hazard models were generated with stratification for severity of stenosis. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-seven subjects were enrolled after an index stroke; 38 were lacunar and 309 were nonlacunar. Over a mean follow-up of 1.8 years, there was no significant difference in stroke recurrence between patients whose index stroke was lacunar (7 of 38 [18%]) versus nonlacunar (69 of 309 [22%]; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.36-1.71). Furthermore, no significant differences were found when groups were stratified by 50% to 69% stenosis (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.12-2.1) and ≥ 70% stenosis (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.34-2.2). Of the 7 recurrent strokes in patients whose index stroke was lacunar, all 7 were nonlacunar and 3 were in the territory of the stenotic artery. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis, the risk of recurrent stroke was similar in patients who presented with lacunar and nonlacunar strokes, and recurrent strokes in patients presenting with lacunar stroke were typically nonlacunar. These findings suggest that the pathophysiology of these strokes is related to the stenosis rather than small vessel disease. Patients presenting with lacunar strokes should be included in trials investigating secondary prevention for symptomatic intracranial stenosis.
Authors: Fadi Nahab; George Cotsonis; Michael Lynn; Edward Feldmann; Seemant Chaturvedi; J Claude Hemphill; Richard Zweifler; Karen Johnston; David Bonovich; Scott Kasner; Marc Chimowitz Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Marc I Chimowitz; Michael J Lynn; Harriet Howlett-Smith; Barney J Stern; Vicki S Hertzberg; Michael R Frankel; Steven R Levine; Seemant Chaturvedi; Scott E Kasner; Curtis G Benesch; Cathy A Sila; Tudor G Jovin; Jose G Romano Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D B Hier; M A Foulkes; M Swiontoniowski; R L Sacco; P B Gorelick; J P Mohr; T R Price; P A Wolf Journal: Stroke Date: 1991-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: L J Kappelle; J C van Latum; J C van Swieten; A Algra; P J Koudstaal; J van Gijn Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Jose Gutierrez; Andrea Gil-Guevara; Srinath Ramaswamy; Janet DeRosa; Marco R Di Tullio; Ken Cheung; Tatjana Rundek; Ralph L Sacco; Clinton B Wright; Mitchell S V Elkind Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Marc I Chimowitz; David Fiorella; Colin P Derdeyn; Tanya N Turan; Bethany F Lane; Scott Janis; Michael J Lynn Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Ido R van den Wijngaard; Ghislaine Holswilder; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Ale Algra; Marieke J H Wermer; Osama O Zaidat; Jelis Boiten Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Jose Gutierrez; Farid Khasiyev; Minghua Liu; Janet T DeRosa; Sarah E Tom; Tatjana Rundek; Ken Cheung; Clinton B Wright; Ralph L Sacco; Mitchell S V Elkind Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-08-10 Impact factor: 27.203