Why the study?
While luminal stenosis severity is an established prognostic factor in symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis, accumulating evidence indicates that cerebral haemodynamics and other factors also alter stroke recurrence risks.
This narrative review highlights the importance of cerebral haemodynamics in assessing stroke recurrence risk and guiding individualized blood pressure management in patients with symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease.
Stenosis severity guides sICAD prognosis; leaves open optimal strategies to curb high recurrence.
Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is a common cause of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) with a high recurrence rate. It is often referred to as intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS), when the plaque has caused significant narrowing of the vessel lumen. The lesion is usually considered 'symptomatic ICAD/ICAS' (sICAD/sICAS) when it has caused an ischaemic stroke or TIA. The severity of luminal stenosis has long been established as a prognostic factor for stroke relapse in sICAS. Yet, accumulating studies have also reported the important roles of plaque vulnerability, cerebral haemodynamics, collateral circulation, cerebral autoregulation and other factors in altering the stroke risks across patients with sICAS. In this review article, we focus on cerebral haemodynamics in sICAS. We reviewed imaging modalities/methods in assessing cerebral haemodynamics, the haemodynamic metrics provided by these methods and application of these methods in research and clinical practice. More importantly, we reviewed the significance of these haemodynamic features in governing the risk of stroke recurrence in sICAS. We also discussed other clinical implications of these haemodynamic features in sICAS, such as the associations with collateral recruitment and evolution of the lesion under medical treatment, and indications for more individualised blood pressure management for secondary stroke prevention. We then put forward some knowledge gaps and future directions on these topics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: