Skip main navigation

Thrombectomy Outcomes of Intracranial Atherosclerosis-Related Occlusions

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Originally published 2019;50:1460–1466


Background and Purpose—

Intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS) is an important cause of large vessel occlusion and poses unique challenges for emergent endovascular thrombectomy. The risk factor profile and therapeutic outcomes of patients with ICAS-related occlusions (ICAS-O) are unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the clinical features and thrombectomy outcomes of large vessel occlusion stroke secondary to underlying ICAS (ICAS-O) versus those of other causes (non–ICAS-O).


A literature search on thrombectomy for ICAS-O was performed. Random-effect meta-analysis was used to analyze the prevalence of stroke risk factors and outcomes of thrombectomy between ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O groups.


A total of 1967 patients (496 ICAS-O and 1471 non–ICAS-O) were included. The ICAS-O group had significantly higher prevalence of hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 1.46; 95% CI, 1.10–1.93), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.29–2.20), dyslipidemia (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.04–3.62), smoking history (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.40–3.17) but less atrial fibrillation (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.13–0.31) than the non–ICAS-O group. About thrombectomy outcomes, ICAS-O had higher intraprocedural reocclusion rate (OR, 23.7; 95% CI, 6.96–80.7), need for rescue balloon angioplasty (OR, 9.49; 95% CI, 4.11–21.9), rescue intracranial stenting (OR, 14.9; 95% CI, 7.64–29.2), and longer puncture-to-reperfusion time (80.8 versus 55.5 minutes, mean difference 21.3; 95% CI, 11.3–31.3). There was no statistical difference in the rate of final recanalization (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b/3; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36–1.27), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.50–1.24), good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0–2; OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.85–1.58), and mortality (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.64–1.39) between ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O.


Patients with ICAS-O display a unique risk factor profile and technical challenges for endovascular reperfusion therapy. Intraprocedural reocclusion occurs in one-third of patients with ICAS-O. Intraarterial glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors infusion, balloon angioplasty, and intracranial stenting may be viable rescue treatment to achieve revascularization, resulting in comparable outcomes to non–ICAS-O.


Endovascular thrombectomy has become the standard of care for acute stroke because of large vessel occlusion (LVO).1 Most LVOs are secondary to emboli of cardiac or carotid origin, and current techniques of stent-retriever and aspiration thrombectomy are highly effective in removing these emboli. However, these techniques are less efficacious in LVOs with underlying intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS).2,3 Intraprocedural reocclusion has been commonly reported and rescue treatment with intraarterial thrombolysis, balloon angioplasty, or stenting may be required for successful revascularization.4 In addition, patients with ICAS-related occlusions (ICAS-O) demonstrate different risk factor profiles and unclear therapeutic outcomes. To understand the clinical features and thrombectomy outcomes of ICAS-O, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O treated with endovascular thrombectomy.


The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Literature Search Strategy and Study Selection

A systematic search in the English literature with Ovid Medline, Pubmed, and Embase from January 2010 to December 2018 was performed. The following terms and their combinations were used as keywords or MeSH terms: intracranial atherosclerosis, stenosis, stenting, angioplasty, mechanical thrombectomy, endovascular, and stroke. We also manually searched the reference lists of the 18 relevant articles to identify additional studies reporting on the clinical features and thrombectomy outcome of ICAS-O that were not included in the initial literature search.

The identified studies were then evaluated with the following inclusion criteria: (1) studies comparing clinical features and risk factors of ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O and (2) studies reporting separately the thrombectomy and clinical outcomes in ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O groups. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) noncomparative studies reporting outcomes only on ICAS-O without a control group of non–ICAS-O, (2) case reports or studies with <5 patients in the ICAS-O group, and (3) studies that reported ICAS treatment in a subacute, nonemergent setting. Both randomized and observational studies were included. This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. As this is a meta-analysis of published studies, formal approval by an ethics committee was not required.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias of the included articles was assessed by 2 independent readers with the Newcastle Ottawa scale for cohort studies.5 The scale assesses the selection, comparability, and ascertainment of outcomes of the study groups, with a higher score indicating a lower risk of bias. Studies that used well-defined selection criteria, with comparable baseline stroke severity, clearly defined diagnostic criteria for ICAS-O, and those that had an independent assessment of clinical and technical outcomes are considered to have a low risk of bias.

Outcome Variables

Patients were divided into ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O groups. For the purpose of this study, patients were considered ICAS-O if they fulfilled the diagnosis criteria adopted by the authors of the respective article. Patients with LVO who received thrombectomy in the same study period and not diagnosed as ICAS-O were considered non–ICAS-O.

The primary outcome was the rate of successful reperfusion, defined by a final modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) score of 2b/3. Secondary outcomes include good functional outcome defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–2 at 90 days, 90-day mortality, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, baseline demographics, and prevalence of cerebrovascular risk factors. Other technical outcomes studied include intraprocedural reocclusion, need for rescue endovascular treatment with balloon angioplasty or stent, the time from groin puncture to reperfusion, and time from symptom onset to reperfusion.

Statistical Analysis

We extracted from each study a 2×2 table for binary outcomes and the mean group sample size and a variability measure for continuous outcomes. The pooled outcomes were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model.6 Heterogeneity of the studies not attributable to chance was quantified with the I2 statistic.7 The 95% CI of the odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes and weighted mean difference for continuous outcomes were reported. Outcomes with median and interquartile range were converted to a mean and SD value based on the assumption of a log-normal distribution of the original measure.

Sensitivity analyses were performed by studying the comparative outcomes including only those studies that include predominantly (>85%) anterior circulation thrombectomy. Meta-analysis and statistical analysis were performed with OpenMeta-Analyst.8


Literature Search

The initial literature search yielded 125 articles. The titles and abstracts of these were read and 101 articles were excluded for irrelevance. Of the remaining 24 articles, 4 were excluded for being case reports or conference abstracts and 2 were excluded for being review or editorial articles. After review, 5 studies were excluded for not reporting separately outcomes of ICAS-O, and 2 articles were excluded for overlapping patient population. In total, 11 eligible studies were included for meta-analysis.9–19 The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Literature search flowchart. ICAS-O indicates intracranial atherosclerosis–related occlusions.

Study Characteristics and the Proportion of ICAS-O

A total of 1967 patients (496 ICAS-O and 1471 non–ICAS-O) in the 10 retrospective and 1 prospective observational studies were included. Ten studies were performed in Asia (6 in Korea, 3 in China, and 1 in Hong Kong), and 1 in the United States. Five studies reported on predominantly anterior circulation thrombectomy (>85%),9,12–14,16 and 3 reported exclusively on posterior circulation thrombectomy.10,11,15 ICAS-O accounted for 27.7% (95% CI, 18.7%–36.7%) of all thrombectomies for LVO stroke. Five of the studies had a low risk of bias, and 6 had a moderate risk of bias. The included studies are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Patient Population and Study Design of Included Articles

AuthorYearNo. of ICAS-ONo. of Non–ICAS-O% of ICAS-O Among All LVOPopulation% of Anterior CirculationStudy DesignRisk of Bias (NOS)
Kang et al132014409230.3%Korea90%Retrospective, single-center7
Lee et al1820152413415.2%Korea63%Retrospective, single-center6
Yoon et al1920154013223.3%Korea81%Retrospective, single-center5
Al Kasab et al172016361658.3%United States67%Retrospective, single-center6
Jia et al122017479333.6%China100%Prospective, multicenter7
Lee et al152017154724.2%Korea0%Retrospective, single-center7
Baek et al920185626217.6%Korea100%Retrospective, single-center8
Fan et al112018353252.2%China0%Retrospective, single-center5
Lee et al1420189942119.0%Korea100%Retrospective, multicenter8
Tsang et al16201895514.1%Hong Kong89%Retrospective, single-center6
Zhang et al102018953871.4%China0%Retrospective, single-center5

ICAS-O indicates intracranial atherosclerosis–related occlusion; LVO, large vessel occlusion; and NOS, Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

Patient Characteristics and Risk Factors

Comparing ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O groups, there were statistically significant differences in the age (63.7 versus 67.2; mean difference, −3.2; 95% CI, −4.68 to −1.67) and proportion of male patients (70.4% versus 51.8%; OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.45–2.34).

The patients with ICAS-O had significantly more hypertension (71.4% versus 63.1%; OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.10–1.93), diabetes mellitus (31.9% versus 22.5%; OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.29–2.20), dyslipidemia (36.0% versus 28.6%; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.04–3.62), and smoking history (44.6% versus 21.8%; OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.40–3.17) but less atrial fibrillation (16.4% versus 54.1%; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.13–0.31) and a lower National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at presentation (14.5 versus 17.0; mean difference, −2.23; 95% CI, −2.98 to −1.48). There was no difference in the prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD), the location of the occlusion, or the use of intravenous thrombolysis (Table 2).

Table 2. Clinical Features and Risk Factors of ICAS-O Versus Non–ICAS-O

ICAS-ONon–ICAS-OOR (95% CI)P valueI2 (P Value)
Male*70.4%51.8%1.84 (1.45 to 2.34)<0.0012.8% (0.42)
Hypertension*71.4%63.1%1.46 (1.10 to 1.93)0.00921.3% (0.24)
Diabetes mellitus*31.9%22.5%1.68 (1.29 to 2.20)<0.00113.0% (0.32)
Atrial fibrillation*16.4%54.1%0.20 (0.13 to 0.31)<0.00148.6% (0.041)
Coronary artery disease12.1%14.7%0.46 (0.42 to 1.49)0.4649.1% (0.081)
Dyslipidemia*36.0%28.6%1.94 (1.04 to 3.62)0.03769.5% (<0.001)
Smoking*44.6%21.8%2.11 (1.40 to 3.17)<0.00158.6% (0.009)
ICA occlusion27.3%35.4%0.72 (0.44 to 1.17)0.1958.3% (0.048)
MCA occlusion67.7%61.8%1.17 (0.67 to 2.04)0.5971.8% (0.007)
IV thrombolysis30.7%43.9%0.89 (0.56 to 1.42)0.4951.7% (0.043)
Mean and mean difference (95% CI)
 Age (years)*63.767.2−3.17 (−4.68 to −1.66)<0.00125.4% (0.202)
 Baseline NIHSS*14.517.0−2.23 (−2.98 to −1.48)<0.00120.4% (0.249)

ICA indicates internal carotid artery; ICAS-O, intracranial atherosclerosis–related occlusion; IV, intravenous; MCA, middle cerebral artery; NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Severity Scale; and OR, odds ratio.


Thrombectomy and Clinical Outcomes

The ICAS-O group had significantly higher intraprocedural reocclusion rate (36.9% versus 2.7%; OR, 23.7; 95% CI, 6.96–80.7), need for rescue balloon angioplasty (9.0% versus 1.3%; OR, 9.49; 95% CI, 4.11–21.9), and rescue intracranial stenting (37.8% versus 2.6%; OR, 14.9; 95% CI, 7.64–29.16). The puncture-to-reperfusion time (80.8 versus 55.5 minutes; mean difference, 21.3; 95% CI, 11.3–31.3) and onset-to-reperfusion time (401.5 versus 333.4 minutes; mean difference, 56.4; 95% CI, 18.7–94.1) were also longer in the ICAS-O cohort.

There was no difference in the rate of final recanalization (TICI 2b/3) and in the rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage between ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O. There was also no significant difference in the functional outcome (mRS score of 0–2) and in the mortality rate at 90 days between groups. These results are summarized in Figure 2 and Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of Meta-Analysis Outcomes of Thrombectomy in ICAS-O Versus Non–ICAS-O

ICAS-ONon–ICAS-OOR (95% CI)P ValueI2 (P Value)
Intraprocedural reocclusion*36.9%2.7%23.7 (6.96–80.7)<0.00178.2% (0.01)
Rescue with balloon angioplasty alone*9.0%1.3%9.49 (4.11–21.9)<0.0010% (0.6)
Rescue with intracranial stenting*37.8%2.6%14.9 (7.64–29.2)<0.00136.3% (0.15)
Final mTICI 2b/381.5%84.3%0.67 (0.36–1.27)0.2268.1% (<0.001)
Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage5.5%8.1%0.79 (0.50–1.25)0.310% (0.72)
mRS score of 0–2 at 90 d49.8%47.9%1.16 (0.85–1.58)0.3444.0% (0.057)
Mortality at 90 d20.2%18.0%0.94 (0.64–1.39)0.764.4% (0.40)
Mean and mean difference (95% CI)
 Puncture-to-reperfusion (min)*80.855.5+21.3 (11.3–31.3)<0.00178.4% (<0.001)
 Onset-to-reperfusion (min)*401.5333.4+56.4 (18.7–94.1)0.00353.0% (0.059)

ICAS indicates intracranial atherosclerosis–related occlusion; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; mTICI, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale; and OR, odds ratio.


Figure 2.

Figure 2. Forest plot of meta-analysis results. A, Final successful reperfusion modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of (mTICI) 2b/3, (B) rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) after endovascular therapy, (C) good functional outcome modified Rankin Scale score of (mRS) 0–2 at 90 days, and (D) mortality rate at 90 d. ICAS-O indicates intracranial atherosclerosis–related occlusions; and OR, odds ratio.

Study Heterogeneity

There was low heterogeneity (I2<50%) for the following outcomes: proportion of male patients (I2=2.8%), hypertension (I2=21.3%), diabetes mellitus (I2=13%), atrial fibrillation (I2=48.6%), coronary heart disease (I2=49.1%), age (I2=25.4%), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (I2=20.4%), need for rescue balloon angioplasty (I2=0%), need for rescue intracranial stenting (I2=36.3%), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rate (I2=0%), functional outcome (mRS score of 0–2) at 3 months (I2=44%), and mortality rate (I2=4.4%). There was moderate substantial heterogeneity (I2>50%) for the following outcomes: dyslipidemia (I2=69.5%), smoking (I2=58.6%), occlusion location (I2=58.3%), use of intravenous thrombolysis (I2=51.7%), intraprocedural reocclusion (I2=78.2%), final rate of TICI 2b/3 (I2=68.1%), puncture-to-reperfusion time (I2=78.4%), and onset-to-reperfusion time (I2=53%).

Sensitivity Analysis

Because of the notion that anterior and posterior circulation ICAS-O may have a different prognosis, we performed a subgroup analysis to determine whether the outcomes were different in anterior circulation versus posterior circulation ICAS-O. In the 5 studies that include predominantly (>85%) anterior circulation ICAS-O, there was no statistically significant difference in final modified TICI 2b/3 rate (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52–1.11) and good functional outcome (mRS score of 0–2) at 90 days (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.74–1.69) between groups. In the 3 studies that exclusively include posterior circulation ICAS-O, there was also no statistically significant difference in final TICI 2b/3 rate (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.08–2.78) and good functional outcome (mRS score of 0–2) at 90 days (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.58–1.68).


ICAS is an important cause of LVO stroke which poses unique challenges to endovascular thrombectomy. Although it is more prevalent in Asia, it can affect patients of any ethnicity and is also often found in the black and Hispanic populations.20 The literature on endovascular thrombectomy in ICAS-O is mainly comprised Asian studies, and our review suggests that ICAS-O accounts for up to a quarter of the LVO stroke burden in Asia. The exact proportion of ICAS-O in non-Asian populations has not been systematically studied but is likely lower, accounting for 5.5% and 8.3% of LVOs in single-center cohort studies from France and the United States, respectively.17,21 This disparity is likely because of the different risk factor profiles of patients with ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O, as highlighted by the current study.

Compared with LVOs of other causes, patients with ICAS-O are more likely men and of a younger age. The prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and smoking is also higher compared with patients with non–ICAS-O. This coincides with the different distribution and prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors between Asian and white populations demonstrated in the Global Burden of Disease study.22 In particular, the prevalence of atrial fibrillation, a major culprit of LVO stroke, is lower in Asian populations when compared with other ethnicities.23 It was estimated that 8% of the white elderly population has atrial fibrillation, while the prevalence is only 3.9% in the elderly population of Asian origin.24 There was no difference in the CAD prevalence observed between ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O group, which could be due to underdiagnosis of asymptomatic CAD in these patients. Hoshino et al25 systematically studied a cohort of patients with ischemic stroke with no prior history of CAD with computed tomography coronary angiogram and identified asymptomatic CAD in 37.5% of patients. Similar results were found by Wu et al,26 in a Taiwanese population. In addition, ICAS in at least the Chinese population does not seem to be associated with the typical risk factors for CAD, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia.27 Knowledge and understanding of this unique risk factor profile are important for the clinician to consider the possibility of an underlying ICAS lesion when performing emergent thrombectomy for patients in this ethnic group.

There are both diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in the management of ICAS-O. Currently, there is no reliable way to diagnose an ICAS-O using preoperative imaging in the setting of an acute LVO stroke.4 Various imaging predictors had been suggested to be associated with ICAS-O, including the degree of calcification of the intracranial carotid arteries on computed tomography, clot burden as assessed by gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging, and the pattern of ischemic lesions on magnetic resonance imaging.16,28 While these factors may suggest an underlying ICAS, they are by no means definitive and may be present in other causes of arterial occlusion such as a fibrous embolus. In the absence of universally accepted diagnostic criteria, most centers consider an occlusion to be because of underlying ICAS when there is (1) residual stenosis of 50% or more after initial thrombectomy or (2) intraprocedural restenosis or reocclusion or (3) evidence of hypoperfusion in territories downstream to the stenosis; and (4) other differential diagnosis such as vasospasm or vessel dissection have been ruled out. This is typically established by repeating the angiogram 10 to 20 minutes after a successful thrombectomy attempt. The interrater reliability using these criteria appeared to be good with a κ value up to 0.9 in a Korean study,9 and similar criteria are adopted by most of the included articles in this review.

The major therapeutic difficulty of ICAS-O is the tendency of intraprocedural reocclusion, which occurred in over one-third of patients compared with only 2.7% in the non–ICAS-O group. Previous autopsy studies on post-thrombectomy patients with underlying ICAS showed histological evidence of fibrous cap disruption, intraplaque hemorrhage, and subintimal dissection of the involved vessel segment, which presumably led to early reocclusion of the recanalized vessel.29,30 It is important and reassuring to note that endovascular rescue therapy with balloon angioplasty, local infusion of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and ultimately stent deployment (or detachment of a stent-retriever) was successful in revascularizing the cerebral circulation in most cases. Indeed, despite the longer puncture-to-reperfusion time in the ICAS-O cohort, there was no difference in the rate of final TICI 2b/3 revascularization as well as good functional outcome between the 2 groups.

The optimal rescue therapy in case of early reocclusion in ICAS-O remains unclear and different first-line therapies were used. Among the studies included in this review, intraarterial infusion of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors such as Tirofiban or Abxicimab via the distal access catheter or the microcatheter was commonly used as the first-line therapy or as an adjunct to intracranial angioplasty/stenting, although detailed information about the dosage and duration was not available for analysis. Emergent intracranial stenting was necessary in one-third of the patients with ICAS-O, and another 9% received balloon angioplasty without stenting. Kang et al compared the outcomes of emergent angioplasty versus intraarterial glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor infusion in a recent 2-center prospective study of 140 patients.31 They showed that both approaches achieved a high revascularization rate of 95% with no difference in functional outcome and mortality. Additionally, the parenchymal and subarachnoid hemorrhage rate was nonsignificantly higher in the center which primarily used rescue balloon angioplasty and stenting, although most of these hemorrhages were asymptomatic.31 Further comparative studies are needed to delineate the safety profile and efficacy of these endovascular rescue approaches.

Intracranial stenting and angioplasty for ICAS in acutely symptomatic patients with stroke are controversial because of the high complication rate demonstrated in previous randomized trials.32,33 Although the recent WEAVE trial (Wingspan Stent System Post-Market Surveillance) showed a low periprocedural complication rate if intracranial stenting was performed 8 days or more from the last stroke, stenting during emergent thrombectomy as a rescue procedure may carry a higher risk.34 Similarly, intensive antiplatelet therapy after acute cerebral ischemia may increase the hemorrhagic risk.35 Nevertheless, the risk-benefit profile has to be reconsidered in the context of LVO stroke with an underlying ICAS lesion that has a high reocclusion rate, as the degree of reperfusion is a strong predictor of functional outcome.36 This is supported by a recent study by Baracchini et al37 that showed patients with ICAS who received urgent intracranial stenting to rescue a failed LVO thrombectomy had superior functional outcome and survival than those whose artery was left occluded. Likewise, the present meta-analysis shows that a high revascularization rate in ICAS-O can be achieved with judicious use of rescue endovascular therapies and that complication rates were not increased. Indeed, as shown in Table 3, there was no significant difference in the symptomatic hemorrhage rate between the ICAS-O group and non–ICAS-O group, and the rate of functional independence or mortality was similar. There is at present no consensus about the antiplatelet management in the acute phase after rescue strategies, such as stenting and angioplasty. In the authors’ center, a computed tomography scan is routinely performed immediately to exclude intracranial hemorrhage after rescue stenting, and intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor infusion is commenced. This is then switched to standard oral antiplatelet agents after 24 hours if no major hemorrhagic transformation occurs.

This study has limitations. First, most of the included studies were performed in Asia, and the outcomes and clinical profile of Western patients with ICAS-O may be different. A recent case series of rescue stent angioplasty in patients with LVO with early reocclusion in Germany found less favorable outcomes and a higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was found.38 It is possible that the collateral perfusion status of patients with ICAS-O may be different and contributed to the favorable clinical outcome despite the longer revascularization time. However, the lack of collateral status data in the included articles precludes detail analysis of this factor. The heterogeneity of thrombectomy techniques and rescue therapeutic approaches preclude detail comparison. Finally, the long-term outcomes of restenosis or recurrent strokes after thrombectomy in the ICAS group were not reported in most of the studies included.


ICAS-O is an important and challenging entity and can account for up to a quarter of LVO strokes receiving endovascular treatment. Patients with ICAS-O display a unique risk factor profile compared with non–ICAS-O. There are technical difficulties in endovascular thrombectomy of ICAS-O as evidenced by the longer puncture-to-reperfusion time and high intraprocedural reocclusion rate. Although the optimal rescue treatment remains to be defined, successful revascularization may be achieved by intraarterial glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors infusion, balloon angioplasty, or intracranial stenting. The final successful reperfusion, favorable functional outcome, and mortality rates were comparable between ICAS-O and non–ICAS-O.


Correspondence to Anderson Chun On Tsang, MBBS, Department of Neurosurgery, Queen Mary Hospital, Room 701, Administrative Block, 102 Pokfulam Rd, Hong Kong. Email


  • 1. Powers WJ, Rabinstein AA, Ackerson T, Adeoye OM, Bambakidis NC, Becker K, et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council. 2018 Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.Stroke. 2018; 49:e46–e110. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000158LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Tsang COA, Cheung IHW, Lau KK, Brinjikji W, Kallmes DF, Krings T. Outcomes of stent retriever versus aspiration-first thrombectomy in ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018; 39:2070–2076. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5825CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Lee JS, Hong JM, Lee KS, Suh HI, Choi JW, Kim SY. Primary stent retrieval for acute intracranial large artery occlusion due to atherosclerotic disease.J Stroke. 2016; 18:96–101. doi: 10.5853/jos.2015.01347CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Lee JS, Hong JM, Kim JS. Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for acute intracranial atherosclerosis-related occlusions.J Stroke. 2017; 19:143–151. doi: 10.5853/jos.2017.00626CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses.2013. Accessed December 15, 2018.Google Scholar
  • 6. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.Contemp Clin Trials. 2015; 45(pt A):139–145. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002Google Scholar
  • 7. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.BMJ (Clinical Research ed.). 2003; 327:557–560.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Wallace BC, Dahabreh IJ, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Trow P, Schmid CH. Closing the gap between methodologists and end-users: R as a computational back-end.J Stat Softw. 2012; 49:15.Google Scholar
  • 9. Baek JH, Kim BM, Heo JH, Kim DJ, Nam HS, Kim YD. Outcomes of endovascular treatment for acute intracranial atherosclerosis-related large vessel occlusion.Stroke. 2018; 49:2699–2705. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022327LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Zhang X, Luo G, Jia B, Mo D, Ma N, Gao F, et al. 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 [published online December 4, 2018].Interv Neuroradiol. doi: 10.1177/1591019918811800. Accessed December 22, 2018.Google Scholar
  • 11. Fan Y, Li Y, Zhang T, Li X, Yang J, Wang B, et al. Endovascular therapy for acute vertebrobasilar occlusion underlying atherosclerosis: a single institution experience.Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019; 176:78–82. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.11.016Google Scholar
  • 12. Jia B, Feng L, Liebeskind DS, Huo X, Gao F, Ma N, et al; EAST Study Group. Mechanical thrombectomy and rescue therapy for intracranial large artery occlusion with underlying atherosclerosis.J Neurointerv Surg. 2018; 10:746–750. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013489CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Kang DH, Kim YW, Hwang YH, Park SP, Kim YS, Baik SK. Instant reocclusion following mechanical thrombectomy of in situ thromboocclusion and the role of low-dose intra-arterial tirofiban.Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014; 37:350–355. doi: 10.1159/000362435CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Lee JS, Lee SJ, Yoo JS, Hong JH, Kim CH, Kim YW, et al. Prognosis of acute intracranial atherosclerosis-related occlusion after endovascular treatment.J Stroke. 2018; 20:394–403. doi: 10.5853/jos.2018.01627CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Lee YY, Yoon W, Kim SK, Baek BH, Kim GS, Kim JT, et al. Acute basilar artery occlusion: differences in characteristics and outcomes after endovascular therapy between patients with and without underlying severe atherosclerotic stenosis.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017; 38:1600–1604. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5233Google Scholar
  • 16. Tsang ACO, Lau KK, Tsang FCP, Tse MMY, Lee R, Lui WM. Severity of intracranial carotid artery calcification in intracranial atherosclerosis-related occlusion treated with endovascular thrombectomy.Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018; 174:214–216. doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.09.030Google Scholar
  • 17. Al Kasab S, Almadidy Z, Spiotta AM, Turk AS, Chaudry MI, Hungerford JP, et al. Endovascular treatment for AIS with underlying ICAD.J Neurointerv Surg. 2017; 9:948–951. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012529CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Lee JS, Hong JM, Lee KS, Suh HI, Demchuk AM, Hwang YH, et al. Endovascular therapy of cerebral arterial occlusions: intracranial atherosclerosis versus embolism.J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015; 24:2074–2080. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.05.003CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Yoon W, Kim SK, Park MS, Kim BC, Kang HK. Endovascular treatment and the outcomes of atherosclerotic intracranial stenosis in patients with hyperacute stroke.Neurosurgery. 2015; 76:680–686; discussion 686. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000694CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Banerjee C, Chimowitz MI. Stroke caused by atherosclerosis of the major intracranial arteries.Circ Res. 2017; 120:502–513. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.308441LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Gascou G, Lobotesis K, Machi P, Maldonado I, Vendrell JF, Riquelme C, et al. Stent retrievers in acute ischemic stroke: complications and failures during the perioperative period.AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014; 35:734–740. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3746CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Feigin VL, Roth GA, Naghavi M, Parmar P, Krishnamurthi R, Chugh S, et al; Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors Study 2013 and Stroke Experts Writing Group. Global burden of stroke and risk factors in 188 countries, during 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013.Lancet Neurol. 2016; 15:913–924. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30073-4CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Rahman F, Kwan GF, Benjamin EJ. Global epidemiology of atrial fibrillation.Nat Rev Cardiol. 2014; 11:639–654. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2014.118CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24. Shen AY, Contreras R, Sobnosky S, Shah AI, Ichiuji AM, Jorgensen MB, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of atrial fibrillation among older adults–a cross-sectional study.J Natl Med Assoc. 2010; 102:906–913.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Hoshino A, Nakamura T, Enomoto S, Kawahito H, Kurata H, Nakahara Y, et al. Prevalence of coronary artery disease in Japanese patients with cerebral infarction: impact of metabolic syndrome and intracranial large artery atherosclerosis.Circ J. 2008; 72:404–408.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Wu YW, Lin MS, Lin YH, Chao CL, Kao HL. Prevalence of concomitant atherosclerotic arterial diseases in patients with significant cervical carotid artery stenosis in Taiwan.Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2007; 23:433–439. doi: 10.1007/s10554-006-9180-xGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Stevens J, Truesdale KP, Katz EG, Cai J. Impact of body mass index on incident hypertension and diabetes in Chinese Asians, American Whites, and American Blacks: the People’s Republic of China Study and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study.Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 167:1365–1374. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwn060CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Suh HI, Hong JM, Lee KS, Han M, Choi JW, Kim JS, et al. Imaging predictors for atherosclerosis-related intracranial large artery occlusions in acute anterior circulation stroke.J Stroke. 2016; 18:352–354. doi: 10.5853/jos.2016.00283Google Scholar
  • 29. Yang WJ, Wong KS, Chen XY. Intracranial atherosclerosis: from microscopy to high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging.J Stroke. 2017; 19:249–260. doi: 10.5853/jos.2016.01956CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30. Yin NS, Benavides S, Starkman S, Liebeskind DS, Saver JA, Salamon N, et al. Autopsy findings after intracranial thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a clinicopathologic study of 5 patients.Stroke. 2010; 41:938–947. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.576793LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 31. Kang DH, Yoon W, Kim SK, Baek BH, Lee YY, Kim YW, et al. Endovascular treatment for emergent large vessel occlusion due to severe intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis [published online June 22, 2018].J Neurosurg. doi: 10.3171/2018.1.JNS172350. Accessed December 29, 2018.Google Scholar
  • 32. Chimowitz MI, Lynn MJ, Derdeyn CP, Turan TN, Fiorella D, Lane BF, et al; SAMMPRIS Trial Investigators. Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis.N Engl J Med. 2011; 365:993–1003. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105335CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Zaidat OO, Fitzsimmons BF, Woodward BK, Wang Z, Killer-Oberpfalzer M, Wakhloo A, et al; VISSIT Trial Investigators. 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; 313:1240–1248. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.1693CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34. Alexander MJ, Zauner A, Chaloupka JC, Baxter B, Callison RC, Gupta R, et al. WEAVE trial: final results in 152 on-label patients.Stroke. 2019; 50:889–894. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.023996LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 35. Bath PM, Woodhouse LJ, Appleton JP, Beridze M, Christensen H, Dineen RA, et al; TARDIS Investigators. Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole versus clopidogrel alone or aspirin and dipyridamole in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia (TARDIS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial.Lancet. 2018; 391:850–859. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32849-0CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36. Tung EL, McTaggart RA, Baird GL, Yaghi S, Hemendinger M, Dibiasio EL, et al. Rethinking thrombolysis in cerebral infarction 2B: which thrombolysis in cerebral infarction scales best define near complete recanalization in the modern thrombectomy era?Stroke. 2017; 48:2488–2493. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.017182LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 37. Baracchini C, Farina F, Soso M, Viaro F, Favaretto S, Palmieri A, et al. Stentriever thrombectomy failure: a challenge in stroke management.World Neurosurg. 2017; 103:57–64. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.070CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38. Forbrig R, Lockau H, Flottmann F, Boeckh-Behrens T, Kabbasch C, Patzig M, et al. Intracranial rescue stent angioplasty after stent-retriever thrombectomy: multicenter experience [published online May 14, 2018].Clin Neuroradiol. doi: 10.1007/s00062-018-0690-4. Accessed December 29, 2018.Google Scholar


eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.

Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.