Etiology-Related Outcome of Endovascular Therapy in Posterior Circulation Stroke Compared to Anterior Circulation Stroke

Background and Purpose We investigated the impact of stroke etiology on the endovascular treatment (EVT) procedure and clinical outcome of posterior circulation stroke (PCS) patients with EVT compared to anterior circulation stroke (ACS) patients. Methods We retrospectively analyzed ischemic stroke patients who underwent EVT between January 2012 and December 2020. Enrolled ACS and PCS patients were compared according to etiologies (intracranial arterial steno-occlusion [ICAS-O], artery-to-artery embolic occlusion [AT O], and cardioembolic occlusion [CA-O]). EVT procedure and favorable clinical outcomes at 3 months (modified Rankin Scale 0???2) were compared between the ACS and PCS groups for each etiology. Results We included 419 patients (ACS, 346; PCS, 73) including 88 ICAS-O (ACS, 67; PCS, 21), 66 AT-O (ACS, 50; PCS, 16), and 265 CA-O (ACS, 229; PCS, 36) patients in the study. The onset-torecanalization time was longer in the PCS group than in the ACS group (median 628.0 minutes vs. 421.0 minutes, P=0.01). In CA-O patients, the door-to-puncture time was longer, whereas the puncture-to-recanalization time was shorter in the PCS group than in the ACS group. The proportions of successful recanalization and favorable clinical outcomes were similar between the ACS and PCS groups for all three etiologies. Low baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores and absence of intracerebral hemorrhage at follow-up imaging were associated with favorable clinical outcomes in both groups, whereas successful recanalization (odds ratio, 11.74; 95% confidence interval, 2.60 to 52.94; P=0.001) was only associated in the ACS

Automated summary

The study examined the impact of stroke etiology on the endovascular treatment (EVT) procedure and clinical outcome of posterior circulation stroke (PCS) patients compared to anterior circulation stroke (ACS) patients. The results showed that there were no significant differences in the EVT procedure and favorable clinical outcomes between the ACS and PCS groups for different etiologies.