Lacunes: Black holes in our understanding of cerebral amyloid angiopathy

Pathophysiology of Lacunar Stroke: History's Mysteries and Modern Interpretations

Since the term "lacune" was adopted in the 1800s to describe infarctions from cerebral small vessels, their underlying pathophysiological basis remained obscure until the 1960s when Charles Miller Fisher performed several autopsy studies of stroke patients. He observed that the vessels displayed segmental arteriolar disorganization that was associated with vessel enlargement, hemorrhage, and fibrinoid deposition. He coined the term "lipohyalinosis" to describe the microvascular mechanism that engenders small subcortical infarcts in the absence of a compelling embolic source. Since Fisher's early descriptions of lipohyalinosis and lacunar stroke (LS), there have been many advancements in the understanding of this disease process. Herein, we review lipohyalinosis as it relates to modern concepts of cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD). We discuss clinical classifications of LS as well as radiographic definitions based on modern neuroimaging techniques. We provide a broad and comprehensive overview of LS pathophysiology both at the vessel and parenchymal levels. We also comment on the role of biomarkers, the possibility of systemic disease processes, and advancements in the genetics of cSVD. Lastly, we assess preclinical models that can aid in studying LS disease pathogenesis. Enhanced understanding of this highly prevalent disease will allow for the identification of novel therapeutic targets capable of mitigating disease sequelae.

Updates on Prevention of Hemorrhagic and Lacunar Strokes

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and lacunar infarction (LI) are the major acute clinical manifestations of cerebral small vessel diseases (cSVDs). Hypertensive small vessel disease, cerebral amyloid angiopathy, and hereditary causes, such as Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), constitute the three common cSVD categories. Diagnosing the underlying vascular pathology in these patients is important because the risk and types of recurrent strokes show significant differences. Recent advances in our understanding of the cSVD-related radiological markers have improved our ability to stratify ICH risk in individual patients, which helps guide antithrombotic decisions. There are general good-practice measures for stroke prevention in patients with cSVD, such as optimal blood pressure and glycemic control, while individualized measures tailored for particular patients are often needed. Antithrombotic combinations and anticoagulants should be avoided in cSVD treatment, as they increase the risk of potentially fatal ICH without necessarily lowering LI risk in these patients. Even when indicated for a concurrent pathology, such as nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, nonpharmacological approaches should be considered in the presence of cSVD. More data are emerging regarding the presentation, clinical course, and diagnostic markers of hereditary cSVD, allowing accurate diagnosis, and therefore, guiding management of symptomatic patients. When suspicion for asymptomatic hereditary cSVD exists, the pros and cons of prescribing genetic testing should be discussed in detail in the absence of any curative treatment. Recent data regarding diagnosis, risk stratification, and specific preventive approaches for both sporadic and hereditary cSVDs are discussed in this review article.