MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3038816958 · doi:10.4103/aian.aian_623_19

A need for tailored approach for patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis

2020· article· en· W3038816958 sur OpenAlexaff
Mahesh Kate, Ashfaq Shuaib

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnnals of Indian Academy of Neurology · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineStenosisInternal medicineAspirinStroke (engine)CardiologyClopidogrelRetrospective cohort studyDiabetes mellitus

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) is associated with a risk of recurrent stroke in approximately 14% of patients in first 90 days of index event despite best medical management.[1] The risk appears to be particularly high in certain ethnic groups like African-American, Asian, Hispanic and South-Asian heritage. Baseline stroke severity, diffuse atherosclerosis and multiple diffusion-weighted lesions may be associated with unfavorable outcome and recurrent stroke.[2] In this issue of the journal the authors demonstrate in a retrospective study an increased risk of recurrent stroke in patients with ICAS from the US (21%) compared with the India (2%). Patients from the US were older, one-third had a prior stroke, one-fifth had coronary artery disease, 44% were on anti-platelet medication and 47% were on statin medication prior to admission. Where as patients from India were younger, more likely to have diabetes and have severe stroke at admission. Furthermore, only 60% patients from the US were on dual antiplatelet therapy at discharge compared with 90% from the India. However, this additional 30% difference in the dual antiplatelet therapy alone may not explain the 20% increase in recurrent stroke rate. Patients with ICAS have a diverse spectrum of vascular phenotype, with variable degree of stenosis (presence of sub-clinical perfusion deficits), focal and diffuse atherosclerosis pattern, collateral artery distribution and plaque enhancement suggestive of inflammation, hemorrhage and vascularity.[3] These patients with ICAS may also have variable amount of aspirin and clopidogrel resistance.[4] Stringent control of blood pressure (< 130 mmHg) with antihypertensive agents or a drop in BP because of autonomic nervous system dysfunction associated with diabetes may also cause worsening of the symptoms or lead to a hemodynamic stroke in patients with ICAS. SAMMPRIS study conclusively demonstrated that aggressive medical management including dual antiplatelet (aspirin 325 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg) for 90 days, strict control of primary risk factors; systolic BP < 140 mmHg and LDL < 70 mg/dl and control of secondary risk factors diabetes, increase exercise and smoking cessation is better than intracranial stenting for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with ICAS.[5] Nonetheless, this uniform strategy of best medical management may not be sufficient in a proportion of patients with ICAS. It may be imperative to identify high-risk group in this cohort and employ individually tailored approach. Patients with high degree of stenosis and/or having cerebral hypoperfusion without ischemia identified on computed tomography perfusion or perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging may be at a high risk for a hemodynamic stroke. A recent study in non-cardioembolic stroke patients ineligible for revascularization therapy and progressive stroke, showed promising results with therapeutic induced hypertension.[6] In that study the odds for neurological improvement (NIHSS > 2) was 2.5 times and odds for functional independence (Modified Rankin scale 0-2) was 3 times in intervention arm (n = 77) compared with standard care arm (n = 76); however, this needs further confirmation in patients with ICAS. A less rigorous control of BP may be needed in this group of patient. Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is feasible in acute stroke patients in the first 24 hours and may help to prevent infarct growth and recurrent stroke.[7] RIC has been tested in a phase 2 study in patients with ICAS and shown to reduce the annual incidence of recurrent stroke and improvement in cerebral blood flow.[8] RIC was given in both upper limbs, two times a day for 300 days with an automated device. RIC was useful in older patients as well. Larger pivotal study is underway. It may be important to test presence of clopidogrel resistance acutely in high-risk patients with ICAS (Severe stenosis, diffuse atherosclerosis, cerebral perfusion deficits, multiple vascular co-morbidities, multiple diffusion-weighted lesions and severe neurological deficits). The choice of agent to be used in patients with clopidogrel resistance and their efficacy remains to be studied. Ticagrelor, prasugrel, rivaroxaban (2.5 mg) in combination with aspirin and cilostazol all are potential agents in patients with clopidogrel resistance. Intracranial stenting is not recommended in most patients acutely because of peri-procedural stroke risk.[5] However, patients with high-risk for recurrent stroke or patients with recurrent in-hospital stroke or stroke after first few weeks of index events; intracranial vessel stenting remains an option. Patients with symptomatic ICAS have a more aggressive natural history. It is important that an individually tailored approach be considered consisting of dual antiplatelet therapy and vascular risk factor management in combination with additional investigation and novel therapies. It may be appropriate to identify a high-risk group using vessel wall imaging, antiplatelet therapy resistance and perfusion imaging. Novel strategy like RIC, newer antiplatelet agents and therapeutic induced hypertension could be investigated in patients with ICAS to determine if these therapies can improve outcome in this aggressive disease.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,032

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,275
Écart entre enseignants0,234 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnnals of Indian Academy of NeurologyMême sujetCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesTravaux en français237 207