Data Management And Sharing System of China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases
Differences in characteristics and outcomes after endovascular therapy: A single-center analysis of patients with vertebrobasilar occlusion due to underlying intracranial atherosclerosis disease and embolism
First author：Zhang Xuelei
Corresponding author：Miao Zhongrong
essential_information
- Person in charge：Zhang Xuelei
- Data Sources： OTHERS
- Number of papers：OTHERS20190881
- Published time：2019-06-01
2019-06-01
Published articles
Journal：Interv Neuroradiol
Publication type: Original Contributions
IF(IF): 1.61
PMID: 30514143 Link To Pubmed Full text Download
Background And Purpose
Method
Patients with VBAO who received endovascular therapy (EVT) were retrospectively analyzed. Participants fulfilling the criteria were classified as the ICAD group (focal stenosis of >70%, or fixed stenosis >50% in addition to either flow and perfusion impairment on angiography or an evident reocclusion tendency) and the embolism group (defined as no evidence of focal significant stenosis after thrombolysis or thrombectomy). Baseline characteristics and outcomes after EVT were compared between the two groups, and logistic regression was performed to explore the factors associated with ICAD.
Conclusion
The occlusion sites and a history of atrial fibrillation might be helpful in predicting ICAD in patients with VBAO. Patients with ICAD who were treated by EVT had a lower rate of recanalization but comparable 90-day good outcomes.
Main results
Among the 133 patients enrolled, 95 (71.4%) patients were categorized in the ICAD group, and 38 (28.6%) in the embolism group. A history of atrial fibrillation (odds ratio (OR) 0.142; 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.028-0.707), p = 0.017), distal basilar artery occlusion (OR 0.107; 95% CI (0.040-0.289), p < 0.001) and V4 segment occlusion (OR 3.423; 95% CI (1.172-9.999), p = 0.024) were independently associated with ICAD. Patients with VBAO due to ICAD had a lower rate of recanalization (81.1% vs 100%, p = 0.004), but the 90-day good clinical outcome was comparable (41.1% vs 50.0%, p = 0.347).