Endovascular Treatment for Acute Posterior Circulation Tandem Lesions: Insights From the BASILAR and PERSIST Registries

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute posterior circulation tandem lesion (PCTL). This study aimed to explore the role of extracranial vertebral artery (VA) stenting in patients with PCTL stroke undergoing EVT. METHODS: Individual patient data were pooled from the BASILAR (EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study) and PERSIST (Posterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke) registries. Patients with PCTLs who underwent EVT were included in the present cohort and divided into the stenting and nonstenting groups based on the placement of extracranial VA stents. The primary efficacy outcome was the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores at 90 days and 1 year. Safety outcomes included 24-hour symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and all-cause mortality at 90 days and 1 year post-surgery. RESULTS: A combined dataset of 1,320 patients with posterior circulation artery occlusion, including 263 (19.9%) with tandem lesions, of whom 217 (median age, 65 years; 82.9% male) met the inclusion criteria for the analysis. The stenting group had 84 (38.7%) patients, while the non-stenting group had 133 (61.3%). After adjustment for the potential confounders, extracranial VA stenting was associated with favorable shifts in mRS scores at both 90 days (adjusted common odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-4.28; P<0.01) and 1 year (adjusted OR [aOR], 2.04; 95% CI [1.05-3.97]; P=0.04), along with lower rate of mortality at both 90 days (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI [0.21-0.93]; P=0.01) and 1 year (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI [0.16-0.79]; P=0.01), with no significant difference in sICH incidence (aOR, 0.35; 95% CI [0.06-1.98]; P=0.24). CONCLUSION: Extracranial VA stenting during EVT may improve functional outcomes and reduce mortality in patients with PCTL strokes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.