1. Intracranial artery calcification: Frequency, determinants, and modification of outcomes from endovascular thrombectomy.
- Author
-
Phan AQ, Yoo B, Liebeskind DS, Sharma LK, Bahr-Hosseini M, Alfonso R, Jahan R, Duckwiler GR, Tateshima S, Nour M, Szeder V, Colby GP, Gornbein J, and Saver JL
- Abstract
Introduction: Intracranial artery calcification (ICAC) is a common finding on computed tomography (CT) in patients presenting with large vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke (LVO-AIS) and could serve as a useful biomarker of intracranial atherosclerosis and altered intracranial vessel pliability in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT)., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study analyzing consecutive patients undergoing CT head prior to EVT between 2016 and 2020. Extent of ICAC proximal to the target vessel was scored using a validated grading scale examining thickness and circumferential extent of calcifications. The relationship between 3 levels of ICAC burden and procedural, clinical, and safety outcomes was analyzed., Results: Among 86 patients meeting inclusion criteria, ICAC of any degree was present in 72.1 %. Median ICAC score was 3 [IQR 0-4]. There was a U-shaped association between ICAC score and successful reperfusion: 90.9 %, 65.7 %, and 94.4 % in the low, intermediate, and high ICAC score groups, respectively (p = 0.008). Use of rescue intervention, most often angioplasty and stenting, was greatest in the high ICAC score group: 3.0 % vs. 5.7 % vs. 22.2 % (p = 0.05). Functional independence at 90 days did not differ significantly among groups (41.7 % vs. 31.0 % vs. 15.4 %, p = 0.26), nor did rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (15.2 % vs. 14.3 % vs. 16.7 %, p = 0.97)., Conclusions: ICAC is seen on CT in nearly three-quarters of patients with LVO-AIS. Extent of ICAC has a U-shaped association with successful reperfusion, in part due to more frequent use of rescue interventions in patients with extensive ICAC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: David S. Liebeskind reports a relationship with Cerenovus that includes: consulting or advisory. David S. Liebeskind reports a relationship with Genentech that includes: consulting or advisory. David S. Liebeskind reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: consulting or advisory. David S. Liebeskind reports a relationship with Stryker that includes: consulting or advisory. David S. Liebeskind reports a relationship with Rapid Medical that includes: consulting or advisory. Geoffrey P. Colby reports a relationship with Stryker Neurovascular that includes: consulting or advisory. Geoffrey P. Colby reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: consulting or advisory. Geoffrey P. Colby reports a relationship with MicroVention Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Geoffrey P. Colby reports a relationship with Cerenovus that includes: consulting or advisory. Geoffrey P. Colby reports a relationship with Rapid Medical that includes: consulting or advisory. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF