BACKGROUND: Intracranial stenoses can cause TIA/ischaemic stroke. The purpose of this study was to assess vascular risk factors, clinical and imaging findings and outcome in Caucasians with intracranial stenosis under best prevention management. METHODS: In this prospective observational study (from 05/2012, to last follow-up 06/2017) we compared vascular risk factors, imaging findings and long-term outcome in Swiss patients with symptomatic versus asymptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenoses on best prevention management. RESULTS: 62 patients were included [35.5% women, median age 68.3 years], 33 (53.2%) with symptomatic intracranial stenoses. Vascular risk factors (p = 0.635) and frequency of anterior circulation stenoses (66.7% vs. 55.2%; p = 0.354) did not differ between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, but CT/MR-perfusion deficits in the territory of the stenosis (81.8% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.011) were more common in symptomatic patients. Outcome in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients at last follow-up was similar (mRS 0-1:66.7% vs. 75%;adjp = 0.937, mRS adjp-shift = 0.354, survival:100% vs. 96.4%;adjp = 0.979). However, during 59,417 patient follow-up days, symptomatic patients experienced more cerebrovascular events (ischaemic stroke or TIA) [37.5% vs. 7.1%;adjHR 7.58;adjp = 0.012], mainly in the territory of the stenosis [31.3% vs. 3.6%;adjHR 12.69;adjp = 0.019], more vascular events (i.e. ischaemic stroke/TIA/TNA and acute coronary/peripheral vascular events) [62.5% vs. 14.3%;adjHR 6.37;adjp = 0.001]) and more multiple vascular events (p-trend = 0.006; ≥ 2:37.5% vs. 10.7%;adj OR 5.37;adjp = 0.022) than asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite best prevention management, one in three patients with a symptomatic intracranial stenosis suffered a cerebrovascular event, three in five a vascular event and two in five ≥ 2 vascular events. There is an unmet need for more rigorous and effective preventive strategies in patients with symptomatic intracranial stenoses.
BACKGROUND: Intracranial stenoses can cause TIA/ischaemic stroke. The purpose of this study was to assess vascular risk factors, clinical and imaging findings and outcome in Caucasians with intracranial stenosis under best prevention management. METHODS: In this prospective observational study (from 05/2012, to last follow-up 06/2017) we compared vascular risk factors, imaging findings and long-term outcome in Swiss patients with symptomatic versus asymptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenoses on best prevention management. RESULTS: 62 patients were included [35.5% women, median age 68.3 years], 33 (53.2%) with symptomatic intracranial stenoses. Vascular risk factors (p = 0.635) and frequency of anterior circulation stenoses (66.7% vs. 55.2%; p = 0.354) did not differ between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, but CT/MR-perfusion deficits in the territory of the stenosis (81.8% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.011) were more common in symptomatic patients. Outcome in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients at last follow-up was similar (mRS 0-1:66.7% vs. 75%;adjp = 0.937, mRS adjp-shift = 0.354, survival:100% vs. 96.4%;adjp = 0.979). However, during 59,417 patient follow-up days, symptomatic patients experienced more cerebrovascular events (ischaemic stroke or TIA) [37.5% vs. 7.1%;adjHR 7.58;adjp = 0.012], mainly in the territory of the stenosis [31.3% vs. 3.6%;adjHR 12.69;adjp = 0.019], more vascular events (i.e. ischaemic stroke/TIA/TNA and acute coronary/peripheral vascular events) [62.5% vs. 14.3%;adjHR 6.37;adjp = 0.001]) and more multiple vascular events (p-trend = 0.006; ≥ 2:37.5% vs. 10.7%;adj OR 5.37;adjp = 0.022) than asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite best prevention management, one in three patients with a symptomatic intracranial stenosis suffered a cerebrovascular event, three in five a vascular event and two in five ≥ 2 vascular events. There is an unmet need for more rigorous and effective preventive strategies in patients with symptomatic intracranial stenoses.
Authors: Sidney C Smith; Richard V Milani; Donna K Arnett; John R Crouse; Mary McGrae McDermott; Paul M Ridker; Robert S Rosenson; Kathryn A Taubert; Peter W F Wilson Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Pierre Amarenco; Julien Bogousslavsky; Alfred Callahan; Larry B Goldstein; Michael Hennerici; Amy E Rudolph; Henrik Sillesen; Lisa Simunovic; Michael Szarek; K M A Welch; Justin A Zivin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-08-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Baigent; A Keech; P M Kearney; L Blackwell; G Buck; C Pollicino; A Kirby; T Sourjina; R Peto; R Collins; R Simes Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-09-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Dena Ettehad; Connor A Emdin; Amit Kiran; Simon G Anderson; Thomas Callender; Jonathan Emberson; John Chalmers; Anthony Rodgers; Kazem Rahimi Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J Donald Easton; Jeffrey L Saver; Gregory W Albers; Mark J Alberts; Seemant Chaturvedi; Edward Feldmann; Thomas S Hatsukami; Randall T Higashida; S Claiborne Johnston; Chelsea S Kidwell; Helmi L Lutsep; Elaine Miller; Ralph L Sacco Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 7.914