Stenting Versus Medical Therapy for Symptomatic Intracranial Artery Stenosis: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial.

IF 7.8 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Stroke Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.049602
Peng Gao, Xiaoxin He, Haibo Wang, Tao Wang, Daming Wang, Huaizhang Shi, Tianxiao Li, Zhenwei Zhao, Yiling Cai, Wei Wu, Weiwen He, Jia Yu, Bingjie Zheng, Xuebing Feng, Colin P Derdeyn, Adam A Dmytriw, Yangfeng Wu, Guoguang Zhao, Liqun Jiao
{"title":"Stenting Versus Medical Therapy for Symptomatic Intracranial Artery Stenosis: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial.","authors":"Peng Gao, Xiaoxin He, Haibo Wang, Tao Wang, Daming Wang, Huaizhang Shi, Tianxiao Li, Zhenwei Zhao, Yiling Cai, Wei Wu, Weiwen He, Jia Yu, Bingjie Zheng, Xuebing Feng, Colin P Derdeyn, Adam A Dmytriw, Yangfeng Wu, Guoguang Zhao, Liqun Jiao","doi":"10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.049602","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether the long-term benefit of stroke prevention when stenting is added to medical therapy (MT) over MT alone for symptomatic severe intracranial artery stenosis offsets the perioperative risks of the stenting has not been directly evaluated in a randomized trial. We aimed to compare the long-term (>3 years) effect of stenting versus MT alone in patients with symptomatic severe intracranial artery stenosis in a randomized trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We extended the follow-up of 358 subjects enrolled in a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial conducted at 8 centers in China. Patients with transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to severe intracranial stenosis (70% to 99%) were recruited between March 5, 2014, and November 10, 2016. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery beyond 30 days. Other secondary outcomes included stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery, as well as disabling stroke or death after enrollment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 358 patients (stenting 176 versus MT 182) were recruited from March 5, 2014, and followed up till January 22, 2024. The median duration of follow-up was 7.4 years (interquartile range, 6.0-8.0). The primary outcome was not significantly different (stenting 14.8% versus MT 14.3%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.58-1.77]; <i>P</i>=0.97). No significant difference was found between groups for the secondary outcomes: stroke in the territory of qualifying artery (14.8% versus 14.3%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.58-1.77]; <i>P</i>=0.97), disabling stroke or death (16.5% versus 14.3%; hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.66-1.91]; <i>P</i>=0.70), and death (9.1% versus 7.1%; hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.58-2.58]; <i>P</i>=0.60).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provides compelling evidence that, even over prolonged observed periods, the addition of stenting to MT does not confer additional benefits to MT alone in patients with symptomatic severe intracranial artery stenosis. These results underscore the importance of MT as the cornerstone of long-term stroke prevention in this patient population.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01763320.</p>","PeriodicalId":21989,"journal":{"name":"Stroke","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.049602","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Whether the long-term benefit of stroke prevention when stenting is added to medical therapy (MT) over MT alone for symptomatic severe intracranial artery stenosis offsets the perioperative risks of the stenting has not been directly evaluated in a randomized trial. We aimed to compare the long-term (>3 years) effect of stenting versus MT alone in patients with symptomatic severe intracranial artery stenosis in a randomized trial.

Methods: We extended the follow-up of 358 subjects enrolled in a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial conducted at 8 centers in China. Patients with transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to severe intracranial stenosis (70% to 99%) were recruited between March 5, 2014, and November 10, 2016. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days or stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery beyond 30 days. Other secondary outcomes included stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery, as well as disabling stroke or death after enrollment.

Results: A total of 358 patients (stenting 176 versus MT 182) were recruited from March 5, 2014, and followed up till January 22, 2024. The median duration of follow-up was 7.4 years (interquartile range, 6.0-8.0). The primary outcome was not significantly different (stenting 14.8% versus MT 14.3%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.58-1.77]; P=0.97). No significant difference was found between groups for the secondary outcomes: stroke in the territory of qualifying artery (14.8% versus 14.3%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.58-1.77]; P=0.97), disabling stroke or death (16.5% versus 14.3%; hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.66-1.91]; P=0.70), and death (9.1% versus 7.1%; hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.58-2.58]; P=0.60).

Conclusions: This study provides compelling evidence that, even over prolonged observed periods, the addition of stenting to MT does not confer additional benefits to MT alone in patients with symptomatic severe intracranial artery stenosis. These results underscore the importance of MT as the cornerstone of long-term stroke prevention in this patient population.

Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01763320.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Stroke
Stroke 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
13.40
自引率
6.00%
发文量
2021
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Stroke is a monthly publication that collates reports of clinical and basic investigation of any aspect of the cerebral circulation and its diseases. The publication covers a wide range of disciplines including anesthesiology, critical care medicine, epidemiology, internal medicine, neurology, neuro-ophthalmology, neuropathology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, nuclear medicine, nursing, radiology, rehabilitation, speech pathology, vascular physiology, and vascular surgery. The audience of Stroke includes neurologists, basic scientists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, internists, interventionalists, neurosurgeons, nurses, and physiatrists. Stroke is indexed in Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, CINAHL, Current Contents, Embase, MEDLINE, and Science Citation Index Expanded.
期刊最新文献
Stenting Versus Medical Therapy for Symptomatic Intracranial Artery Stenosis: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial. Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation Over Cerebellum Facilitates Neurological Recovery in Poststroke Depression via the cAMP/PKA/CREB Pathway. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Ischemic Stroke Severity in the National Inpatient Sample Between 2018 and 2021. Uric Acid Stroke Cerebroprotection Transcended Sex, Age, and Comorbidities in a Multicenter Preclinical Trial. Impact of Rurality and Geographical Accessibility on Stroke Care and Outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1