Platelet aggregation in intracranial stents may mimic in-stent restenosis

Feasibility and Safety of Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Intracranial Symptomatic In-Stent Restenosis

Objective: Symptomatic in-stent restenosis (sISR) is the major cause of medium- or long-term cerebral infarctions in patients who underwent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting for severe intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of paclitaxel-coated balloon (PCB) angioplasty for the treatment of intracranial sISR. Methods: We report 11 cases of PCB angioplasty for intracranial sISR. Lesion locations and number were as follows: intracranial internal carotid artery (n = 4), M1 segment of middle cerebral artery (MCA) (n = 1), V4 segment of vertebral artery (n = 6). The technical success rate, periprocedural complications, and short-term outcome were retrospectively analyzed. Results: All procedures were successfully performed without periprocedural complication. Asymptomatic vessel dissection after PCB inflation occurred in one case. Postprocedural diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) showed new asymptomatic ipsilateral infarction in one case. All 11 cases did not experience ipsilateral stroke or death within 30 days or ischemic stroke in the territory of the target artery between 31 and 90 days after procedure. Conclusion: This preliminary study indicates that PCB angioplasty is feasible and safe for the treatment of intracranial sISR. Further studies are needed to clarify its efficiency and long-term outcome.

Tandem Short-length Multi-stent Construct for Emergent Revascularization of Occlusive Long-segment Left Middle Cerebral Artery In-stent Stenosis

Endovascular stenting and balloon angioplasty is a feasible although controversial option for intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis refractory to maximize medical management. High rates of symptomatic in-stent restenosis (ISR) have been identified with Wingspan stent (Stryker, Fremont, CA, USA) placement. Revascularization of ISR by way of re-stenting is often attempted, albeit with high risk and low durability. In lesions with long-segment non-focal critical or emergent occluded stenosis, re-stenting with a single balloon mounted stent is not possible due to deliverability of a lengthy device through a tortuous carotid siphon. Tandem drug-eluting stent placement within the middle cerebral artery to address acute, occlusive ISR using a Wingspan stent, with additional stent reconstruction, has not been previously described.

Impacts of CYP2C19 Polymorphism and Clopidogrel Dosing on in-Stent Restenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Chinese Patients

Objective

This retrospective cohort study is to analyze the impacts of CYP2C19 polymorphism and clopidogrel dosing on in-stent restenosis (ISR) after coronary stenting.

Methods

Totally, 111 patients were included, who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent. Patients received clopidogrel treatment after the intervention on the background treatment with aspirin, based on the genotypes: 75 mg clopidogrel once each day for subjects without CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) alleles (n=51; EM), 75 mg clopidogrel once each day (n=27; IM75) or twice each day (n=33; IM150) for subjects with one CYP2C19 LOF allele. ISR at 3-18 months after coronary stenting was assessed.

Results

ISR rate was significantly higher in the IM75 group (40.7%) than the EM group (11.8%). ISR rate in the IM150 group was lower than the IM75 group (6.1% vs 40.7%), and comparable to that in the EM group. Multivariate logistic regression showed that both CYP2C19 genotype and clopidogrel dosing were associated with the risk of ISR after adjusting the relevant confounding factors. ISR risk was higher in the IM patients than the EM patients. Patients with clopidogrel dose of 75 mg once each day had significantly higher risk of ISR than those with the dose of 75 mg twice each day.

Conclusion

Increased dose of clopidogrel may reduce the risk of ISR after PCI in CYP2C19 LOF allele(s) carriers. The presence of CYP2C19 LOF allele(s) increases the risk of ISR after stenting, which could be counteracted by the increased dose of clopidogrel.

Systematic and Comprehensive Comparison of Incidence of Restenosis Between Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients with Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis to systematically compare the incidence rates of in-stent restenosis after carotid artery stenting (CAS) and restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for patients with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis.

METHODS

We retrieved potential academic reports comparing restenosis between CEA and CAS from the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library from the date of the first CEA (January 1951) to July 20, 2018. The references of the identified studies were carefully reviewed to ensure that all available reports were included in the present study.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 27 studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 12 nonrandomized controlled trials) and 20,479 participants with atherosclerotic carotid stenosis. A statistically significant difference was found in the cumulative incidence of restenosis >70% between CEA and CAS (risk difference, -0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.054 to -0.013; P = 0.002). For the restenosis >70% outcomes, although CEA was relevant with a lower rate of restenosis than CAS within 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.495; 95% CI, 0.285-0.861; P = 0.013) and 1 year (OR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.483-0.811; P < 0.001), no statistically significant differences were found at 1.5 years (P = 0.210), 2 years (P = 0.123), 4 years (P = 0.124), 5 years (P = 0.327), or 10 years (P = 0.839). For the restenosis >50% outcomes, a significant difference was found in the rate of restenosis between the CEA and CAS groups within 1 year (OR, 0.317; 95% CI, 0.228-0.441; P < 0.001) but not at 1.5 years (P = 0.301), 2 years (P = 0.686), or 5 years (P = 0.920). No nominally significant effects were demonstrated with respect to the cumulative incidence of occlusion (P = 0.195) or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients (P = 0.170) between CEA and CAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CAS was preferred over CEA, regardless of restenosis >50% or >70% after revascularization within 1 year, no significant difference was observed with extension of the follow-up period to >1 year. CAS was not associated with a greater cumulative incidence of occlusion or the cumulative incidence of restenosis for symptomatic patients.

Restenosis after carotid artery stenting

As a common etiology for ischemic stroke, atherosclerotic carotid stenosis has been targeted by vascular surgery since 1950s. Compared with carotid endarterectomy, carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) is almost similarly efficacious and less invasive. These advantages make CAS an alternative in treating carotid stenosis. However, accumulative evidences suggested that the long-term benefit-risk ratio of CAS may be decreased or even neutralized by the complications related to in-stent restenosis (ISR). Therefore, investigating the mechanisms and identifying the influential factors of ISR are of vital importance for improving the long-term outcomes of CAS. As responses to intrinsic and extrinsic injuries, intimal hyperplasia and vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation have been regarded as the principle mechanisms for ISR development. Due to the lack of consensus-based definition and consistent follow-up protocol, the reported incidences of ISR after CAS varied widely among studies. These variations made the inter-study comparisons of ISR largely illogical. To eliminate restenosis after CAS, both surgery and endovascular procedures have been attempted with promising results. For preventing ISR, drug-eluting stents and antiplatelets have been proposed as potential solutions.

Incidence of microemboli and correlation with platelet inhibition in aneurysmal flow diversion

Flow-diverting stents have been associated with embolic and hemorrhagic complications, but the rate of procedure-related microemboli is unknown. Using transcranial Doppler sonography, we measured the rate of microemboli in 23 patients treated with flow-diverting stents. Patients received preprocedural dual antiplatelet medications and intraprocedural heparinization. Point-of-care platelet reactivity testing was performed before the procedure, and nonresponders (>213 P2Y12/ADP receptor reactivity units) received additional thienopyridine. Transcranial Doppler sonography was performed within 12-24 hours. Microemboli were detected in 3 patients (13%), 2 of whom were initially nonresponders. There was no association between the presence of microemboli and procedural or neurologic complications, aneurysm size, number of stents, or procedure time. Eight procedures (34.8%) required additional thienopyridine for inadequate platelet inhibition, and 3 required further treatment for persistent nonresponse to point-of-care platelet reactivity testing. There were 6 technical and 2 postoperative complications; none were associated with inadequate platelet inhibition or microemboli. The combination of routine point-of-care platelet reactivity testing and postprocedural microembolic monitoring may help identify patients at risk for thromboembolic complications after flow-diverting stents.

Perioperative management of a neurosurgical patient requiring antiplatelet therapy

In patients who undergo neurovascular stent placement with postoperative dual antiplatelet therapy to prevent in-stent thrombosis, there is no protocol for balancing the risk of acute stent thrombosis and bleeding if urgent neurosurgical procedures are required. We detail perioperative management of dual antiplatelet therapy in a 66-year-old man with a dolichoectatic aneurysm of the basilar artery treated with a Pipeline stent. Postoperatively, the patient was placed on aspirin and clopidogrel to prevent in-stent thrombosis. One month after the procedure, his neurological status declined secondary to obstructive hydrocephalus. His condition necessitated urgent placement of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt, despite the dual antiplatelet therapy for the flow-diverting Pipeline stent. Aspirin and clopidogrel were discontinued seven days prior to the planned shunt placement. To minimize time off antiplatelet therapy, aspirin was immediately replaced with ibuprofen. Eptifibatide was then started three days prior to surgery. The ibuprofen/eptifibatide bridge was discontinued at midnight prior to surgery. Aspirin was restarted on the first postoperative day and clopidogrel was restarted on the second postoperative day. The patient tolerated shunt placement without excessive bleeding or hemorrhagic complications. During the remainder of his hospital course, no evidence of stent thrombosis or intracranial hemorrhage was noted. We conclude that management of antiplatelet prophylaxis for neurovascular stent thrombosis in patients requiring urgent neurosurgical procedures may be successfully achieved by bridging aspirin and clopidogrel with ibuprofen and eptifibatide in the preoperative period.