UK Medical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union, Netherlands Heart Foundation, and Mach-Gaensslen Foundation.

Spontaneous intracranial artery dissection is an uncommon and probably underdiagnosed cause of stroke that is defi ned by the occurrence of a haematoma in the wall of an intracranial artery. Patients can present with headache, ischaemic stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage, or symptoms associated with mass eff ect, mostly on the brainstem. Although intracranial artery dissection is less common than cervical artery dissection in adults of European ethnic origin, intracranial artery dissection is reportedly more common in children and in Asian populations. Risk factors and mechanisms are poorly understood, and diagnosis is challenging because characteristic imaging features can be diffi cult to detect in view of the small size of intracranial arteries. Therefore, multimodal follow-up imaging is often needed to confi rm the diagnosis. Treatment of intracranial artery dissections is empirical in the absence of data from randomised controlled trials. Most patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage undergo surgical or endovascular treatment to prevent rebleeding, whereas patients with intracranial artery dissection and cerebral ischaemia are treated with antithrombotics. Prognosis seems worse in patients with subarachnoid haemorrhage than in those without.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundStents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy.MethodsThe International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.FindingsThe trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4·0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3·2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·28, 95% CI 0·77–2·11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8·5% in the stenting group compared with 5·2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1·69, 1·16–2·45, p=0·006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1·92, 1·27–2·89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2·76, 1·16–6·56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0·0197).InterpretationCompletion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundStenting is an alternative to endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis, but long-term efficacy is uncertain. We report long-term data from the randomised International Carotid Stenting Study comparison of these treatments.MethodsPatients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned 1:1 to open treatment with stenting or endarterectomy at 50 centres worldwide. Randomisation was computer generated centrally and allocated by telephone call or fax. Major outcomes were assessed by an independent endpoint committee unaware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke in any territory after randomisation to the end of follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat ([ITT] all patients) and per protocol from 31 days after treatment (all patients in whom assigned treatment was completed). Functional ability was rated with the modified Rankin scale. This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.Findings1713 patients were assigned to stenting (n=855) or endarterectomy (n=858) and followed up for a median of 4·2 years (IQR 3·0–5·2, maximum 10·0). Three patients withdrew immediately and, therefore, the ITT population comprised 1710 patients. The number of fatal or disabling strokes (52 vs 49) and cumulative 5-year risk did not differ significantly between the stenting and endarterectomy groups (6·4% vs 6·5%; hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·72–1·57, p=0·77). Any stroke was more frequent in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (119 vs 72 events; ITT population, 5-year cumulative risk 15·2% vs 9·4%, HR 1·71, 95% CI 1·28–2·30, p<0·001; per-protocol population, 5-year cumulative risk 8·9% vs 5·8%, 1·53, 1·02–2·31, p=0·04), but were mainly non-disabling strokes. The distribution of modified Rankin scale scores at 1 year, 5 years, or final follow-up did not differ significantly between treatment groups.InterpretationLong-term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis.FundingMedical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

No abstract

Cervical artery dissection (CeAD), a mural hematoma in a carotid or vertebral artery, is a major cause of ischemic stroke in young adults although relatively uncommon in the general population (incidence of 2.6/100,000 per year)1. Minor cervical traumas, infection, migraine and hypertension are putative risk factors1–3, and inverse associations with obesity and hypercholesterolemia are described3,4. No confirmed genetic susceptibility factors have been identified using candidate gene approaches5. We performed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in 1,393 CeAD cases and 14,416 controls. The rs9349379[G] allele (PHACTR1) was associated with lower CeAD risk (odds ratio (OR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.69–0.82; P = 4.46 × 10−10), with confirmation in independent follow-up samples (659 CeAD cases and 2,648 controls; P = 3.91 × 10−3; combined P = 1.00 × 10−11). The rs9349379[G] allele was previously shown to be associated with lower risk of migraine and increased risk of myocardial infarction6–9. Deciphering the mechanisms underlying this pleiotropy might provide important information on the biological underpinnings of these disabling conditions.