Comparison of the safety and efficacy of Neuroform Atlas stent deployed via Gateway balloon catheter and microcatheter for the treatment of intracranial stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the Atlas stent released by the Gateway catheter and microcatheter in the treatment of intracranial stenosis (IS). METHODS: The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were the in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate and post-procedural stroke or death within one month. RESULTS: Atlas stents were deployed using the Gateway catheter and microcatheter in 19 (57.6 %) and 14 (42.4 %) procedures, respectively. Follow-up imaging data were available for 26 patients; the incidence of ISR was 15.4 %, and the ISR rate was higher, though not significantly, in the microcatheter group than in the Gateway group (30.0% vs. 6.25 %, P = .39). Clinical follow-up data were available for 30 patients; the post-procedural stroke rate was 3.3 % within one month and 13.3 % from one month to one year. The post-procedural stroke rate within one month was higher, though not significantly, in the microcatheter group than in the Gateway group (7.7% vs. 0 %, P = .43). The Gateway group had a significantly lower rate of post-procedural stroke in the same territory than that of the microcatheter group (0% vs. 30.8 %, P = .026). A higher incidence of residual stenosis <30 % was found in the non-ISR group than in the ISR group (72.2% vs. 0 %, P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence that the Atlas stent is safe and effective for IS treatment. The use of the Gateway catheter to deliver the Atlas stent appears to be safer than using microcatheter. The incidence of ISR may be related to the degree of the residual stenosis.

Arm-only combined transarterial and transvenous access for neurointerventional procedures: a double-center retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to share our experience with the arm-only combined transarterial and transvenous access approach for neurointerventional procedures and evaluate its efficacy and safety. METHODS: The arm-only combined transarterial and transvenous access approach was performed using the right/bilateral proximal radial arteries and the right forearm superficial vein system, guided by ultrasonic guidance. Arterial access closure was achieved using a transradial band radial compression device, while manual compression was utilized for venous approach closure. RESULTS: Thirteen procedures were successfully performed using the arm-only combined transarterial and transvenous access approach, yielding favorable outcomes. The procedures included dural arteriovenous fistula embolization (seven cases), cerebral arteriovenous malformation embolization (four cases), venous sinus thrombosis catheter-directed thrombolysis and intravenous thrombectomy (one case), and cerebral venous sinus stenosis manometry (one case). All procedures were uneventful, allowing patients to ambulate on the same day. At discharge, all patients exhibited modified Rankin scores of 0-2, without any access site or perioperative complications. CONCLUSION: This double-center study preliminarily demonstrates the feasibility and safety of arm-only combined transarterial and transvenous access applied in neurointerventional procedures for complicated cerebrovascular diseases. The proximal radial artery and forearm superficial vein are recommended as the primary access sites. Unobstructed compression is strongly recommended for radial approach closure. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study aimed to add evidence and experience on the arm-only combined transarterial and transvenous access, as a new approach, for neurointerventional treatment that required arteriovenous approaches.