Background and Purpose-We aimed to establish the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of intracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS) in China by a large, prospective, multicenter study. Methods-We evaluated 2864 consecutive patients who experienced an acute cerebral ischemia <7 days after symptom onset in 22 Chinese hospitals. All patients underwent magnetic resonance angiography, with measurement of diameter of the main intracranial arteries. ICAS was defined as ≥50% diameter reduction on magnetic resonance angiography. Results-The prevalence of ICAS was 46.6% (1335 patients, including 261 patients with coexisting extracranial carotid stenosis). Patients with ICAS had more severe stroke at admission and stayed longer in hospitals compared with those without intracranial stenosis (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 3 versus 5; median length of stay, 14 versus 16 days; both P<0.0001). After 12 months, recurrent stroke occurred in 3.27% of patients with no stenosis, in 3.82% for those with 50% to 69% stenosis, in 5.16% for those with 70% to 99% stenosis, and in 7.27% for those with total occlusion. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses showed that the degree of arterial stenosis, age, family history of stroke, history of cerebral ischemia or heart disease, complete circle of Willis, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at admission were independent predictors for recurrent stroke at 1 year. The highest rate of recurrence was observed in patients with occlusion with the presence of ≥3 additional risk factors. Conclusions-ICAS is the most common vascular lesion in patients with cerebrovascular disease in China. Recurrent stroke rate in our study was lower compared with those of previous clinical trials but remains unacceptably high in a subgroup of patients with severe stenosis. (Stroke. 2014;45:663-669.)

No abstract

Background and Purpose-We systematically compared and appraised contemporary guidelines on management of asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Methods-We systematically searched for guideline recommendations on carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS) published in any language between January 1, 2008, and January 28, 2015. Only the latest guideline per writing group was selected. Each guideline was analyzed independently by 2 to 6 authors to determine clinical scenarios covered, recommendations given, and scientific evidence used. Results-Thirty-four eligible guidelines were identified from 23 different regions/countries in 6 languages. Of 28 guidelines with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis procedural recommendations, 24 (86%) endorsed CEA (recommended it should or may be provided) for ≈50% to 99% average-surgical-risk asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis, 17 (61%) endorsed CAS, 8 (29%) opposed CAS, and 1 (4%) endorsed medical treatment alone. For asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis patients considered high-CEA-risk because of comorbidities, vascular anatomy, or undefined reasons, CAS was endorsed in 13 guidelines (46%). Thirty-one of 33 guidelines (94%) with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis procedural recommendations endorsed CEA for patients with ≈50% to 99% average-CEA-risk symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, 19 (58%) endorsed CAS and 9 (27%) opposed CAS. For high-CEA-risk symptomatic carotid artery stenosis because of comorbidities, vascular anatomy, or undefined reasons, CAS was endorsed in 27 guidelines (82%). Guideline procedural recommendations were based only on results of trials in which patients were randomized 12 to 34 years ago, rarely reflected medical treatment improvements and often understated potential CAS hazards. Qualifying terminology summarizing recommendations or evidence lacked standardization, impeding guideline interpretation, and comparison. This systematic review of contemporary international guidelines was performed to compare and appraise recommendations for the management of patients with ACS and SCS (including accessibility, organization, clarity, and consistency) and the evidence used in making these recommendations. Conclusions-This Methods Guideline SearchesGuidelines with recommendations on the use of CEA or CAS or both patients with ACS or SCS or both were sought systematically using popular search engines, bibliographies, and author professional networks. PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched independently and synchronously by 2 authors on September 9, 2013 (A.L.A., K.I.P.). PubMed was searched using carotid guideline and then stroke guideline in the title, yielding 91 references after duplicate removal. ISI Web of Knowledge was searched using carotid and guideline and then stroke and guideline in the title, yielding 422 references after removal of duplicates, abstracts, reference materials, letters, corrections, meetings, news, and case reports. Wider searches using the words carotid or stroke and guideline in any ...