Carotid Artery Stenting And Intracranial Thrombectomy For Tandem Cervical And Intracranial Artery Occlusions Comment

BACKGROUND It remains controversial whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) is needed in cases of tandem cervical internal carotid artery occlusion (cICAO) and intracranial large vessel occlusion (LVO). OBJECTIVE To investigate the efficacy and safety of CAS in combination with endovascular thrombectomy (CAS-EVT) in cICAO-LVO patients and to compare its outcomes with those of EVT without CAS (EVT-alone). METHODS We identified all patients who underwent EVT for tandem cICAO-LVO from the prospectively maintained registries of 17 stroke centers. Patients were classified into 2 groups: CAS-EVT and EVT-alone. Clinical characteristics and procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between 2 groups. We tested whether CAS-EVT strategy was independently associated with recanalization success. RESULTS Of the 955 patients who underwent EVT, 75 patients (7.9%) had cICAO-LVO. Fifty-six patients underwent CAS-EVT (74.6%), and the remaining 19 patients underwent EVT-alone (25.4%). The recanalization (94.6% vs 63.2%, P = .002) and good outcome rates (64.3% vs 26.3%, P = .007) were significantly higher in the CAS-EVT than in the EVT-alone. Mortality was significantly lower in the CAS-EVT (7.1% vs 21.6%, P = .014). There was no significant difference in the rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage between 2 groups (10.7 vs 15.8%; P = .684) and according to the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (10.0% vs 12.3%; P = .999) or antiplatelet medications (10.2% vs 18.8%; P = .392). CAS-EVT strategy remained independently associated with recanalization success (odds ratio: 24.844; 95% confidence interval: 1.445-427.187). CONCLUSION CAS-EVT strategy seemed to be effective and safe in cases of tandem cICAO-LVO. CAS-EVT strategy was associated with recanalization success, resulting in better clinical outcome.