← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

SECURIS

Stenting Extracranial Carotid artery stenosis dURing endovascular treatment in patients with acute Ischemic Stroke study

Year of Publication: 2025

Authors: Garbiñe Ezcurra-Díaz, Pere Cardona, Noelia Rodriguez-Villatoro, ..., Pol Camps-Renom

Journal: Neurology

Citation: Neurology® 2025;105:e214067. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000214067

Link: https://neurology.org


Clinical Question

Does emergent carotid artery stenting improve functional outcomes and remain safe in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to atherosclerotic tandem lesions? Is the benefit sustained at 1-year follow-up?

Bottom Line

Emergent carotid artery stenting during endovascular therapy was associated with better functional outcomes at 90 days and 1 year without safety concerns, even in moderate ICA stenosis.

Major Points

  • Population-based registry study from Catalonia, Spain including 578 patients with tandem lesions
  • eCAS performed in 59.5% (344/578) of patients
  • Better functional outcome with eCAS at 90 days (cOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20-1.82, P<0.001) and 1 year (cOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.16-1.85, P=0.001)
  • Higher successful recanalization rates with eCAS (91.7% vs 73.0%, OR 4.28, P<0.001)
  • No increased hemorrhagic transformation risk (16.9% vs 12.5%, P=0.142) or mortality
  • Benefit consistent in both moderate (50%-69%) and severe (≥70%) ICA stenosis subgroups
  • Potential treatment effect differences observed for women and older patients
  • Dual antiplatelet therapy at 24 hours associated with better outcomes in eCAS group (54.6% vs 22.9%, P<0.001)

Design

Study Type: Observational study based on prospective mandatory population-based registry

Randomization:

Blinding: 90-day mRS assessed blindly and centrally; 1-year mRS assessed by treating neurologist (not blinded)

Enrollment Period: January 2017 to March 2023

Follow-up Duration: 90 days and 1 year

Centers: 10

Countries: Spain

Sample Size: 578

Analysis: Intention-to-treat analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with ordinal logistic regression for shift analysis. Propensity score adjusted for confounders. Stata version 17.0


Inclusion Criteria

  • Age ≥18 years
  • Previous modified Rankin Scale score 0-3
  • Time from symptom onset or last time seen well ≤24 hours
  • Acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion of anterior circulation (terminal ICA, M1/M2 MCA, A1 ACA)
  • Concomitant atheromatous stenosis of cervical ICA ≥50%
  • Treatment with any EVT modality, with or without prior IV thrombolysis

Exclusion Criteria

  • Lack of critical follow-up data (mRS score at 90 days and follow-up CT within first 36 hours)
  • Nonatheromatous etiology of ICA stenosis (e.g., dissection), except indeterminate etiology due to coexistence of atrial fibrillation and atheromatous ICA stenosis

Arms

FieldEmergent Carotid Artery Stenting (eCAS)Control
InterventionEmergent carotid artery stenting during endovascular therapy for tandem lesionsEndovascular therapy alone without emergent carotid stenting
DurationAcute intervention during EVT procedureAcute intervention during EVT procedure

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
Shift in modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days and 1 year of follow-upPrimaryMedian mRS 3 (2-5) at 90 daysMedian mRS 3 (1-5) at 90 days1190 days: P<0.001; 1 year: P=0.001
Favorable functional outcome at 90 days (mRS 0-2)Secondary36.8%45.9%1.430.004
Successful recanalization (mTICI ≥2b)Secondary73.0%91.7%4.28<0.001
Mortality at 90 daysSecondary21.4%20.6%0.833
Relevant hemorrhagic transformationAdverse29 patients (12.5%)58 patients (16.9%)0.142
Symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhageAdverseNot specified separately51 cases (8.9%) overall

Subgroup Analysis

Benefit of eCAS was consistent in both moderate (50%-69%) and severe (≥70%) ICA stenosis subgroups. Potential treatment effect differences observed for women and older patients. In eCAS group, dual antiplatelet therapy at 24 hours showed higher rates of favorable functional outcome.


Criticisms

  • Observational design with possible unmeasured confounders
  • Non-randomized treatment allocation potentially subject to selection bias
  • 1-year mRS assessment not centrally evaluated and not blinded to eCAS status
  • Radiologic image analyses not centralized or blinded to eCAS status
  • Decision-making for stent placement at discretion of treating practitioner
  • Absence of data on stroke recurrence during follow-up
  • Exclusion of patients with missing follow-up data may introduce bias
  • Some data collected retrospectively by participating centers

Funding

No targeted funding reported

Based on: SECURIS (Neurology, 2025)

Authors: Garbiñe Ezcurra-Díaz, Pere Cardona, Noelia Rodriguez-Villatoro, ..., Pol Camps-Renom

Citation: Neurology® 2025;105:e214067. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000214067

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.