Abstract 056: Patterns of Care in the Management of Intracranial Atherosclerosis‐related Large Vessel Occlusion–the RESCUE‐LVO survey

Abstract

Introduction Intracranial atherosclerosis‐related large vessel occlusion (ICAS‐LVO) is a common cause of failed mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) [1]. Treatment of ICAS‐LVO with rescue stenting and/or angioplasty has shown promising outcomes, but diagnosing ICAS‐LVO during MT can be challenging [2, 3]. There are uncertainties regarding optimal approaches, techniques, and timing for treating ICAS‐LVO. To understand current practice patterns and address these uncertainties, we conducted a survey among neurointerventional practitioners experienced in ICAS‐LVO management during MT. Methods We conducted an international online survey of neurointerventionalist members of the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery (SNIS) and the Society of Vascular and Interventional Neurology (SVIN). The 28‐question poll evaluated the preferences on diagnosis, treatment, and endovascular approach to ICAS‐LVO. Results 168 individual survey responses were obtained from practicing neurointerventional physicians. Overall, 40.6% reported an incidence of 6–10% of ICAS‐LVO during MT. Most neurointerventionalists (91%) diagnose ICAS‐LVO after a continued or recurrent occlusion or by the presence of fixed focal stenosis (FFS) after multiple MT attempts. Most respondents (86%) preferred acute treatment of ICAS‐LVO with rescue stenting (RS) +/‐ angioplasty. However, in patients who achieved recanalization with a severe FFS, the majority (44%) recommended maximal medical management only. The preferred medication during acute RS was intravenous antiplatelet therapy (69%), and after acute RS was dual oral antiplatelet therapy (58%). Fear of hemorrhagic complications (70%) was the most compelling reason not to perform RS +/‐ angioplasty. Twenty‐five percent of respondents were hesitant to randomize patients to acute RS versus medical therapy in a future randomized trial because of the lack of sensitive and specific biomarkers to diagnose ICAS‐LVO before MT treatment. Conclusion Our survey highlights the significant variability and uncertainty in the diagnosis and management of ICAS‐LVO during MT among neurointerventional practitioners. There is no equipoise regarding the optimal treatment strategy, and the fear of hemorrhagic complications associated with antithrombotic medications contributes to the variation in practice. Our survey underscores the need for future research and randomized clinical trials to address the uncertainties in the management of ICAS‐LVO during MT. Improved imaging biomarkers and consensus guidelines are essential to guide clinical decision‐making and optimize patient outcomes in this challenging population of AIS patients.