Timing of intracranial stent placement and one month stroke and/or death rates in patients with high-grade symptomatic intracranial stenosis: pooled analysis of SAMMPRIS and VISSIT trials
- PMID: 40467296
- DOI: 10.1136/jnis-2025-023318
Timing of intracranial stent placement and one month stroke and/or death rates in patients with high-grade symptomatic intracranial stenosis: pooled analysis of SAMMPRIS and VISSIT trials
Abstract
Background: A critical evaluation of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendation to avoid intracranial stent placement (ICAS) within 7 days of a qualifying cerebral ischemic event.
Methods: This evaluation compared the rates of 1 month stroke and/or death associated with ICAS performed within 7 days and more than 7 days after a qualifying cerebral ischemic event in patients with high-grade (70-99% in severity) intracranial stenosis in two randomized controlled trials. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the impact of time interval strata between the qualifying cerebral ischemic event and ICAS on 1 month stroke and/or death rate (independent ascertainment).
Results: The rates of 1 month stroke and/or death were 14 of 112 (12.5%) and 33 of 172 (19.2%) in patients treated within 7 days and more than 7 days after a qualifying cerebral ischemic event, respectively (P=0.071). There was no difference in the 1 month stroke and/or death rate in patients who were treated within 7 days and those treated after 7 days after a qualifying cerebral ischemic event (OR 1.0004, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.84) after adjusting for age, gender, severity of stenosis strata, qualifying cerebral ischemic event type (transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke), and stent used (self-expanding vs balloon expandable stents).
Conclusions: This analysis did not show any increased risk of 1 month stroke and/or death in patients who underwent ICAS within 7 days compared with those treated more than 7 days after the qualifying cerebral ischemic event. Delaying the ICAS according to current FDA recommendations may not be necessary when ICAS is indicated.
Keywords: Intervention; Stenosis; Stent; Stroke.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Similar articles
-
Endovascular therapy versus medical treatment for symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 11;8(8):CD013267. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013267.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Feb 3;2:CD013267. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013267.pub3. PMID: 32789891 Free PMC article. Updated.
-
Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty with Stent Placement versus Best Medical Therapy Alone in Symptomatic Intracranial Arterial Stenosis: A Best Evidence Review.Cureus. 2018 Jul 16;10(7):e2988. doi: 10.7759/cureus.2988. Cureus. 2018. PMID: 30397562 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Effect of a balloon-expandable intracranial stent vs medical therapy on risk of stroke in patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis: the VISSIT randomized clinical trial.JAMA. 2015 Mar 24-31;313(12):1240-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.1693. JAMA. 2015. PMID: 25803346 Clinical Trial.
-
Design of the Vitesse Intracranial Stent Study for Ischemic Therapy (VISSIT) trial in symptomatic intracranial stenosis.J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 Oct;22(7):1131-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.10.021. Epub 2012 Dec 21. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013. PMID: 23261207 Clinical Trial.
-
Intracranial Angioplasty with Enterprise Stent for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Stenosis: A Single-Center Experience and a Systematic Review.Biomed Res Int. 2021 Apr 17;2021:6645500. doi: 10.1155/2021/6645500. eCollection 2021. Biomed Res Int. 2021. PMID: 33959660 Free PMC article.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources