Feasibility and safety of thrombectomy for isolated occlusions of the posterior cerebral artery: a multicenter experience and systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Substantial clinical evidence supporting the benefit of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for distal occlusions within the posterior circulation is still missing. This study aims to investigate the procedural feasibility and safety of MT for isolated occlusions of the posterior cerebral artery. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients from three stroke centers with acute ischemic stroke attributed to isolated posterior cerebral artery occlusion (IPCAOs) who underwent MT between January 2014 and December 2019. Procedural and safety assessment included successful recanalization rates (defined as Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction Scale (TICI) ≥2b), number of MT attempts and first-pass effect (TICI 3), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), mortality, and intervention-related serious adverse events. Treatment effects were evaluated by the rate of early neurological improvement (ENI) and early functional outcome was assessed with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at discharge. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and summarize previous reports on MT for IPCAOs. RESULTS: Forty-three patients with IPCAOs located in the P1 (55.8%, 24/43), P2 (37.2%, 16/43), and P3 segment (7%, 3/43) were analyzed. The overall rate of successful recanalization (TICI ≥2b) was 86% (37/43), including a first pass-effect of 48.8% (21/43) leading to TICI 3. sICH occurred in 7% (3/43) and there were two cases with iatrogenic vessel dissection and one perforation. ENI was observed in 59% (23/39) and excellent functional outcome (mRS ≤1) in 46.2% (18/39) of patients who were discharged. The in-hospital mortality rate was 9.3% (4/43). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests the technical feasibility and safety of thrombectomy for IPCAOs. Further studies are needed to investigate safety and long-term functional outcomes with posterior circulation stroke-adjusted outcome assessment.

Evaluation of noninvasive follow-up methods for the detection of intracranial in-stent restenosis: a phantom study.

OBJECTIVES: Intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (IA-DSA), an invasive procedure, is the current reference examination after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for the detection of in-stent restenosis (ISR). In this phantom study, we evaluated flat-panel angiographic computed tomography after intravenous contrast agent application (IV-ACT) and multidetector computed tomographic angiography (MDCTA) as potential noninvasive follow-up alternatives after intracranial percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We simulated an intracranial vessel using a silicon tube placed inside a human skull. Three different stent systems were deployed inside the silicon tubes, each with diameters of 3 or 4 mm. Three grades of ISR (25%, 50%, and 75%) were simulated. The IA-DSA and IV-ACT examinations were performed on a flat-panel detector angiography system. The MDCTA images were acquired with a 128-slice computed tomographic scanner. The mean stenosis diameters, measured with each technique, were compared using the Bland-Altman plot. The difference between the known stenosis diameter and the measured stenosis diameter was calculated for each examination. RESULTS: Stenosis measurements on the IA-DSA images showed no statistically significant differences compared with the known stenosis diameters (P = 0.19). In the 3-mm stent category, when compared with the known stenosis diameter, mean (SD) differences of 0.01 (0.15) mm, 0.03 (0.24) mm and 0.16 (0.5) mm were calculated for the IA-DSA, IV-ACT, and MDCTA stenosis measurements, respectively. As for the 4-mm stents, IA-DSA and IV-ACT were again very accurate, with mean (SD) differences of -0.03 (0.11) mm and 0.07 (0.19) mm, respectively, compared with the known stenosis diameters, whereas MDCTA overestimated ISR, with a mean (SD) difference of 0.49 (0.53) mm. The Bland-Altman plots show a mean (SD) difference of 0.08 (0.2) mm between IA-DSA and IV-ACT (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.11) and a mean (SD) difference of 0.34 (0.56) mm between IA-DSA and MDCTA measurements (95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.42). CONCLUSIONS: In our phantom study, IA-DSA was the only examination to predict accurately degrees of stenosis compared with the known stenosis diameters. The results of the IV-ACT measurements were comparable with those of IA-DSA. Multidetector computed tomographic angiography was less accurate in the quantification of stenosis, usually overestimating ISR.