4.7 Review

A Systematic Review on Outcome After Stenting for Intracranial Atherosclerosis

期刊

STROKE
卷 40, 期 5, 页码 E340-E347

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.532713

关键词

intracranial; stent; angioplasty

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. (Stroke. 2009; 40: e340-e347.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据