Effect of a Balloon-Expandable Intracranial Stent vs Medical Therapy on Risk of Stroke in Patients With Symptomatic Intracranial Stenosis

IMPORTANCE Intracranial stenosis is one of the most common etiologies of stroke.To our knowledge, no randomized clinical trials have compared balloon-expandable stent treatment with medical therapy in symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the balloon-expandable stent plus medical therapy vs medical therapy alone in patients with symptomatic intracranial stenosis (Ն70%). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS VISSIT (the Vitesse Intracranial Stent Study for IschemicStroke Therapy) trial is an international, multicenter, 1:1 randomized, parallel group trial that enrolled patients from 27 sites (January 2009-June 2012) with last follow-up in May 2013.INTERVENTIONS Patients (N = 112) were randomized to receive balloon-expandable stent plus medical therapy (stent group; n = 59) or medical therapy alone (medical group; n = 53). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPrimary outcome measure: a composite of stroke in the same territory within 12 months of randomization or hard transient ischemic attack (TIA) in the same territory day 2 through month 12 postrandomization.A hard TIA was defined as a transient episode of neurological dysfunction caused by focal brain or retinal ischemia lasting at least 10 minutes but resolving within 24 hours.Primary safety measure: a composite of any stroke, death, or intracranial hemorrhage within 30 days of randomization and any hard TIA between days 2 and 30 of randomization.Disability was measured with the modified Rankin Scale and general health status with the EuroQol-5D, both through month 12.RESULTS Enrollment was halted by the sponsor after negative results from another trial prompted an early analysis of outcomes, which suggested futility after 112 patients of a planned sample size of 250 were enrolled.The 30-day primary safety end point occurred in more patients in the stent group (14/58; 24.1% [95% CI, 13.9%-37.2%])vs the medical group (5/53; 9.4% [95% CI, 3.1%-20.7%])(P = .05).Intracranial hemorrhage within 30 days occurred in more patients in the stent group (5/58; 8.6% [95% CI, 2.9%-19.0%])vs none in the medical group (95% CI, 0%-5.5%)(P = .06).The 1-year primary outcome of stroke or hard TIA occurred in more patients in the stent group (21/58; 36.2% [95% CI, 24.0-49.9])vs the medical group (8/53; 15.1% [95% CI, 6.7-27.6])(P = .02).Worsening of baseline disability score (modified Rankin Scale) occurred in more patients in the stent group (14/58; 24.1% [95% CI, 13.9%-37.2%])vs the medical group (6/53; 11.3% [95% CI, 4.3%-23.0%])(P = .09).The EuroQol-5D showed no difference in any of the 5 dimensions between groups at 12-month follow-up.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis, the use of a balloon-expandable stent compared with medical therapy resulted in an increased 12-month risk of added stroke or TIA in the same territory, and increased 30-day risk of any stroke or TIA.These findings do not support the use of a balloon-expandable stent for patients with symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis.