Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 1, 2025

Optimized Management of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Published on: January 18, 2018
Outcome after endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke by underlying etiology: Tertiary experience and
Chunlin Ma1,2, Wenbo Cao1,3, Yang Huang1,4
1Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Insights
Outcomes for acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion treated with endovascular thrombectomy were similar regardless of etiology. Intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) and cardioembolism (CE) showed comparable functional outcomes and mortality rates.
Area of Science:
- Neurology
- Cardiology
- Vascular Surgery
Background:
- Large vessel occlusion (LVO) is a critical cause of acute ischemic stroke (AIS).
- Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is a primary treatment for AIS-LVO.
- Distinguishing between intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) and cardioembolism (CE) as etiologies is crucial for understanding stroke mechanisms and outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical outcomes of AIS patients with LVO treated with EVT, focusing on the two major etiologies: ICAS and CE.
- To evaluate the impact of ICAS versus CE on functional outcomes, mortality, and hemorrhage rates post-EVT.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 302 anterior circulation AIS patients undergoing EVT.
- Collection of clinical and laboratory data, comparing outcomes like favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-2), mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and symptomatic ICH (sICH).
- Inclusion of a systematic review and meta-analysis of 8 studies (552 ICAS patients, 1,402 CE patients).
Main Results:
- The ICAS group (86 patients) was younger and had higher rates of smoking and drinking history, and required more rescue therapy compared to the CE group (216 patients).
- No significant differences in favorable outcome or mortality were observed between ICAS and CE groups in the retrospective analysis.
- Meta-analysis indicated slightly higher favorable outcomes (54.2% vs. 46.3%) and lower mortality (14.3% vs. 22.2%) and ICH rates (19.5% vs. 31.9%) in the ICAS group compared to the CE group, though sICH rates were similar.
Conclusions:
- Etiology (ICAS vs. CE) did not significantly impact functional outcomes in AIS-LVO patients treated with EVT.
- Despite differences in baseline characteristics, EVT outcomes are comparable between ICAS and CE etiologies.
- The study supports that ICAS is not associated with significantly different outcomes compared to CE in anterior circulation AIS-LVO patients undergoing EVT.
Objective:
To investigate the effect of two major etiologies [intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) and cardioembolism (CE])] on outcomes of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) after endovascular thrombectomy (EVT).
Methods:
Anterior circulation AIS patients receiving EVT were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and laboratory data were collected. Clinical outcomes including favorable outcome (90-day modified Rankin Scale 0-2), mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and symptomatic ICH (sICH) were compared. A systematic review and meta-analysis was also performed.
Results:
A total of 302 AIS patients were included and divided into the ICAS group (86 patients) and the CE group (216 patients). Patients in the ICAS group were younger (62[18.0] vs. 68[19.0] years, p < 0.001), more likely to have smoking (52.3% vs. 26.9%, p < 0.001) and drinking (52.3% vs. 23.1%, p < 0.001) history, and more frequently required rescue therapy (80.2% vs. 4.6%, p < 0.001) compared to the CE group. However, favorable outcome (aOR 0.722, 95%CI 0.372-1.402, p = 0.336) and mortality (aOR 1.522, 95%CI 0.606-3.831, p = 0.371) were not significantly different between the two groups before and after adjustment. The incidence of sICH and ICH were comparable between the two groups before and after adjustment. Systematic review and meta-analysis consisted of 8 eligible studies (7 previous studies and this current study), incorporating 552 ICAS patients and 1,402 CE patients. Favorable outcome was slightly more likely in the ICAS group compared to the CE group (54.2% vs. 46.3%, OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.00-1.96, I 2 = 53.2%). Moreover, the ICAS group had a lower rate of mortality (14.3% vs. 22.2%, OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.46-0.87, I 2 = 0.0%) and ICH (19.5% vs. 31.9%, OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.42-0.84, I 2 = 0.0%) than the CE group, while the two groups were similar in sICH rate (5.9% vs. 6.7%, OR 0.94, 95%CI 0.55-1.60, I 2 = 6.3%).
Conclusion:
Etiology was not considered as an important factor in functional outcome, despite the differences in baseline characteristics and technical EVT approach. The current study of anterior circulation AIS-LVO patients supports that outcomes for those with ICAS are not significantly different from those with CE.
Related Concept Videos
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care

