Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 May 19;18(5):e0285982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285982

Revisiting flow augmentation bypass for cerebrovascular atherosclerotic vaso-occlusive disease: Single-surgeon series and review of the literature

Jihad Abdelgadir 1,*, Aden P Haskell-Mendoza 1, Amanda R Magno 1, Alexander D Suarez 1, Prince Antwi 1, Alankrita Raghavan 1, Patricia Nelson 1, Lexie Zidanyue Yang 2, Sin-Ho Jung 2, Ali R Zomorodi 1
Editor: Tatsushi Mutoh3
PMCID: PMC10198506  PMID: 37205640

Abstract

Objective

Despite advances in the nonsurgical management of cerebrovascular atherosclerotic steno-occlusive disease, approximately 15–20% of patients remain at high risk for recurrent ischemia. The benefit of revascularization with flow augmentation bypass has been demonstrated in studies of Moyamoya vasculopathy. Unfortunately, there are mixed results for the use of flow augmentation in atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease. We conducted a study to examine the efficacy and long term outcomes of superficial temporal artery to middle cerebral artery (STA-MCA) bypass in patients with recurrent ischemia despite optimal medical management.

Methods

A single-institution retrospective review of patients receiving flow augmentation bypass from 2013–2021 was conducted. Patients with non-Moyamoya vaso-occlusive disease (VOD) who had continued ischemic symptoms or strokes despite best medical management were included. The primary outcome was time to post-operative stroke. Time from cerebrovascular accident to surgery, complications, imaging results, and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were aggregated.

Results

Twenty patients met inclusion criteria. The median time from cerebrovascular accident to surgery was 87 (28–105.0) days. Only one patient (5%) had a stroke at 66 days post-op. One (5%) patient had a post-operative scalp infection, while 3 (15%) developed post-operative seizures. All 20 (100%) bypasses remained patent at follow-up. The median mRS score at follow up was significantly improved from presentation from 2.5 (1–3) to 1 (0–2), P = .013.

Conclusions

For patients with high-risk non-Moyamoya VOD who have failed optimal medical therapy, contemporary approaches to flow augmentation with STA-MCA bypass may prevent future ischemic events with a low complication rate.

Introduction

In the United States, approximately 795,000 individuals develop a stroke each year, of which 185,000 are recurrent [1]. A further 160,264 die from cerebrovascular disease, the 5th leading cause of mortality in 2020 [2]. Eighty-seven percent of strokes are ischemic, with the remainder consisting of intracerebral (10%) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (3%) [3].

Multiple randomized-controlled trials have generated high quality evidence for the use of antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, and thrombolysis for treatment and prevention of stroke [1]. Unfortunately, certain stroke etiologies, including severe intracranial large artery occlusion and patients with chronic retinal ischemia or limb-shaking transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), have a 15–20% risk of recurrence despite optimal nonsurgical therapy [49]. These recurrent ischemic events reduce patient quality of life and carry significant morbidity and mortality [1, 4]. In this subgroup of patients at high-risk for recurrent ischemia and functional loss, there remains a potential role for extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass.

Yaşargil performed the first superficial temporal artery to middle cerebral artery (STA-MCA) anastomosis in Zurich, Switzerland in 1967 to treat internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion [6]. Following its development, EC-IC bypass was adopted the treatment of ischemic cerebrovascular disease, with publication of several retrospective series [6, 1015]. This culminated in the International EC-IC Bypass trial, which tested whether the procedure in addition to best medical therapy (BMT) was superior to BMT alone in a heterogenous group of patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease and ultimately demonstrated no difference in the incidence of fatal and nonfatal ischemic strokes between groups [16].

While a reduction in the use of STA-MCA bypass followed the trial’s publication, critics noted that no hemodynamic criteria were used to stratify patients for inclusion, forming the basis for the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS). Published in 2011, COSS randomized 195 patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery occlusion and cerebral ischemia on PET scans to bypass and BMT (n = 97) versus BMT alone (n = 98) and was stopped early for futility at 2 years [17]. 21% of patients in the surgical group developed ipsilateral stroke at the time of study termination versus 22.7% in the medical group; the perioperative stroke rates were 14.4% versus 2.0%, respectively. Requirements for participation in COSS included a 2-day workshop on microvascular anastamosis or at least 10 previous bypass cases, with supervision if below case thresholds [18]. There were no certification requirements for neuroanesthesia, neuro-intensive care, or nursing staff, suggesting a role for interventions to lower perioperative morbidity given higher than expected perioperative stroke rates [4, 17].

In the interval since these trials, indications for STA-MCA bypass have included complex intracranial aneurysms, skull base tumors with vascular involvement, and flow augmentation in Moyamoya disease [4]. There remains speculation that the aforementioned subsets of patients not included in either COSS or the EC-IC Bypass trial may benefit from surgical intervention [46]. In the post-COSS era, there has been mounting evidence for bypass in high-risk patients at centers with significant procedural experience [1921]. Haynes and colleagues recently published a series of 8 patients treated with STA-MCA bypass between 2016–2019 following recurrent or rapidly progressive strokes despite optimal medical or endovascular treatment [21]. In this study, 88% of patients had no recurrent strokes, and 75% demonstrated functional improvement as measured by the modified Rankin scale (mRS). Similarly, our institution has continued to offer STA-MCA bypass for patients with symptomatic disease (i.e. recurrent strokes or “crescendo” ischemic symptoms) despite optimal medical treatment. Indeed, it has been our experience that this select group of patients with vaso-occlusive disease (VOD) derives benefit from operative intervention. We report a single-surgeon series of 20 patients receiving STA-MCA bypass for high-risk, symptomatic VOD with functional improvement and extremely low post-operative stroke rates.

Materials and methods

Patient selection and operation

For consideration of bypass, patients had to meet the following criteria: failure of best medical therapy (i.e. aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy), defined as continued “crescendo” ischemic symptoms or strokes despite optimal nonsurgical management. All patients receive a CT head and neck angiogram or digital subtraction angiogram to assess internal and external carotid circulation and identify a possible donor and receipient vessel. Once in the operating room, the senior author’s typical practice is to conduct Doppler ultrasound to identify the path of the superficial temporal artery. The resultant linear or curvilinear incision is made following the artery to expose 8–10 cm of the donor vessel only, with minimal additional dissection to expose the parietal branch of the STA. An arterial line is placed by neuroanesthesia for dedicated blood pressure management. Intraoperatively, patients are maintained at a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 100. A recipient site requiring no sacrifice or manipulation of microcortical vessels is selected. The typical vessel clamp time during the bypass procedure is under 15 minutes. Bypass patency is confirmed intra-operatively with indocyanine green videoangiography and post-operatively via CT angiogram. All patients are cared for in our institution’s dedicated neuro-intensive care unit following the operation. The arterial line remains in place with a goal MAP of 80–90 for the first 24 hours post-operatively.

Data collection

This study was conducted in accordance with a protocol approved by the health system institutional review board (IRB # Pro00108340). A retrospective review of patients receiving STA-MCA bypass performed by a single surgeon (A.R.Z) from July 2013 to January 2021 was completed. Patients were included based on receipt of STA-MCA bypass for VOD. Patients who were undergoing STA-MCA bypass for Moyamoya disease, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, or aneurysm were excluded from the study. Other donor-recipient vessel pairs and bypasses for tumors were similarly excluded.

The primary outcome was time to post-operative stroke, confirmed as new areas of diffusion restriction on MRI on the ipsilateral side of the bypass. Additional measures included patient demographics and comorbidities, CT perfusion findings preceding and following surgery, imaging characteristics of post-operative stroke, functional outcomes as measured by the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at discharge and follow-up, and peri- and post-operative complications.

Statistical analyses

For patients with atheroscleroticVOD, continuous variables were summarized with means, standard deviations, medians, interquartile ranges, and ranges. Categorical variables were summarized with frequency counts and percentages. Patients were censored at the last date of follow up. The statistical significance level was set at P = 0.05. All tests were two-sided. These analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the post-operative stroke-free probability and draw the stroke-free survival curve. Change in mRS from time of presentation to discharge or follow-up was compared using Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank tests in GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Inc., San Diego, CA).

Results

Patient clinical and surgical characteristics

During the study period, 79 patients were treated with EC-IC bypass. Of those excluded, 39 (49.4%) received bypass for Moyamoya disease and 20 (25.3%) for aneurysm or vertebrobasilar insufficiency. The remaining 20 patients received open vascular surgery for atherosclerotic VOD. Baseline characteristics for the study cohort are shown in Table 1. The median age in our study was 64 years (range 45–78); 10 (50.0%) patients identified as female. Nine (45.0%) patients were former smokers, and a further 4 (20.0%) were current smokers. The median modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at the time of presentation was 2.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 1–3), with the last cerebrovascular accident occurring at a median of 87 days (IQR 28–1195 days) prior to surgery (Table 2 & Fig 1A).

Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics.

VOD (N = 20)
Age -
 Mean (SD) 61.9 (9.8)
 Median 64.0
 Q1, Q3 52.5, 70.0
 Range (45.0–78.0)
Sex -
 Female 10 (50.0%)
 Male 10 (50.0%)
Smoking Status -
 Never 7 (35.0%)
 Current 4 (20.0%)
 Past 9 (45.0%)
 Unknown 0 (0.0%)
Vascular Territory a -
 ACA 6 (30.0%)
 MCA 17 (85.0%)
 PCA 4 (20.0%)
Hemoglobin-A1c -
 Mean (SD) 8.0 (2.8)
 Median 6.4
 Q1, Q3 5.8, 11.2
 Range (5.2–12.6)
Aspirin -
 Yes 20 (100.0%)
Dose of Aspirin (mg) -
 81 12 (60.0%)
 325 8 (40.0%)
Dual antiplatelet therapy -
 No 6 (30.0%)
 Yes 14 (70.0%)
Anticoagulation -
 No 14 (70.0%)
 Yes 6 (30.0%)
Comorbidities -
 HTN 17 (85.0%)
 DM 8 (40.0%)
 HLD 10 (50.0%)
 Renal Disease 5 (25.0%)
 Atrial Fibrillation 1 (5.0%)

Abbreviations: A1C, hemoglobin A1C; ACA, anterior cerebral artery; DM, diabetes mellitus; HLD, hyperlipidemia; HTN, hypertension; MCA, middle cerebral artery; PCA, posterior cerebral artery; SD, standard deviation.

aCategories not mutually exclusive.

Table 2. Surgical characteristics of patients receiving STA-MCA bypass for atherosclerotic vaso-occlusive disease (VOD).

VOD (N = 20)
Days from Last Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA) to Surgery -
 Mean (SD) 188.1 (367.1)
 Median 87.0
 Q1, Q3 28.0, 195.0
 Range (0.0–1696.0)
Surgery -
 Left bypass 12 (60.0%)
 Right bypass 8 (40.0%)
Type of Bypass -
 Single barrel 19 (95.0%)
 Double barrel 1 (5.0%)

Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation.

Most patients presented with disease attributable to the anterior circulation (16 patients, 80.0%), with the MCA being the most common site (17, 85.0%) (Table 2). Twelve (60.0%) patients subsequently underwent left-sided bypass, with 8 receiving right-sided surgery. Almost all patients (19, 95.0%) received a single barrel bypass, with 1 receiving double barrel bypass.

Fig 1. STA-MCA bypass for VOD is associated with improvement in post-operative median Modified Rankin Scale score and lowered stroke risk.

Fig 1

A. The Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at the time of presentation, discharge, and follow up was collected for all patients (n = 20) and shown on violin plots. Medians are shown as dashed lines, with the interquartile range represented as dotted lines. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was used to make non-parametric comparisons between group medians. P = .013 for initial presentation [median mRS 2.5 (IQR 1–3)] to follow-up [1 (0–2)] and P = .0002 for discharge [2 (1.25–2.75)] to follow-up, P = .85 for initial presentation to discharge, not significant. B. Kaplan-Meier curve of stroke-free survival following receipt of STA-MCA bypass for VOD (n = 20). Median not reached. One patient had a stroke at post-operative day 66.

We next reviewed baseline medications and comorbidities (Table 1). All patients were receiving aspirin at presentation. A further 14 (70.0%) were receiving dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), and 6 (30.0%) patients were on anticoagulation. Comorbidities included hypertension in 17 (85.0%) patients, hyperlipidemia in 10 patients (50.0%), diabetes mellitus in 8 patients (40.0%), renal disease in 5 patients (25.0%), and atrial fibrillation in 1 patient.

Cerebrovascular outcomes following STA-MCA bypass for VOD

The median duration of follow-up during the study period was 213.5 days (36–1330 days). The primary outcome of stroke-free survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and is shown in Fig 1B. Remarkably, only 1 (5%) of the 20 patients suffered from post-operative stroke at 66 days.

We additionally analyzed pre- and post-operative CT imaging for cerebrovascular abnormalities, shown in Table 3. Only 8 (40.0%) patients had pre-operative CT perfusion studies available for analysis, all of which were abnormal. A subset of 6 patients had matched post-operative CT perfusions. For all patients, post-operative imaging showed improved perfusion.

Table 3. Pre- and postoperative CT perfusion findings for patients receiving STA-MCA bypass.

VOD (N = 20)
Pre-operative CT Perfusion a
 ACA Oligemia 5 (25.0%)
 MCA Oligemia 8 (40.0%)
 PCA Oligemia 2 (10.0%)
 Unavailable 12 (60.0%)
Post-operative CT Perfusion
 Unavailable or no comparator 14 (70.0%)
 Improved 6 (30.0%)

aCategories are not mutually exclusive.

Pre- and post-operative MRIs were reviewed for stroke (Table 4). Pre-operative MRIs demonstrated evidence of infarction in 9 (45.0%) patients. Only one patient (5%) had postoperative stroke on MRI with involvement of the right-sided MCA territory.

Table 4. Pre- and postoperative MRI findings.

VOD (N = 20)
Pre-operative Stroke Present on MRI* 9 (45.0%)
 ACA Territory 2 (10.0%)
 MCA Territory 8 (40.0%)
 PCA Territory 1 (5.0%)
Post-Op Stroke Present on MRI a 1 (5.0%)
 ACA Territory 0 (0.0%)
 MCA Territory 1 (5.0%)
  Ipsilateral side of bypass? 1 (5.0%)
 PCA Territory 0 (0.0%)

aCategories are not mutually exclusive.

Functional status as measured by mRS was also improved following treatment in our cohort (Fig 1A). The median mRS at discharge was 2 (IQR 1.25–2.75), with median mRS at the time of follow-up decreased to 1, no significant disability (IQR 0–2). We found that the median mRS at follow-up was significantly improved from initial presentation (1 vs 2.5, P = 0.013) and from discharge (1 vs 2, P = 0.0002), but was not significant in the early period from initial presentation to discharge (P = 0.85), suggesting an influence of early post-operative debility on functional status.

Complications related to STA-MCA bypass

Although the risk of stroke was low in the study cohort, we examined rates of additional postoperative complications in our sample (Table 5). No patients suffered from hemorrhage. One patient developed a post-operative scalp infection. Long term bypass patency was excellent, with no occlusion post-operatively. Seizures were noted in 3 of 20 patients (15.0%).

Table 5. Perioperative and postoperative complications associated with STA-MCA bypass for vaso-occlusive disease.

VOD (N = 20)
Complications -
 Hemorrhage 0 (0.0%)
 Infection 1 (5.0%)
 Bypass occlusion 0 (0%)
 Stroke 1 (5.0%)
 Seizure 3 (15.0%)

Comparison to published studies

We reviewed the literature for post-COSS series of EC-IC bypass for steno-occlusive disease and compared them to our own as shown in Table 6 [7, 8, 1924]. Seven of 8 studies (87.5%) were retrospective in nature. Excluding a single case report, the number of patients treated ranged from 12 to 179, with a mean cohort age of 55 to 62 years. Treatment criteria were qualitatively broad, but stringent, often focusing on medically refractory or recurrent ischemic symptoms and incorporating a variety of diagnostic testing (acetazolamide challenge, CT perfusion, MRI). Only 3 studies other than our own reported functional outcomes. The perioperative stroke rate ranged from 4.3% to 17.6% for a study focusing on “rescue bypass” for evolving ischemia. Bypass patency rates for all reported studies were above 90%.

Table 6. Comparison and review of post-COSS literature on direct bypass for VOD.

Author Year Study type Number of patients Mean age Criteria for Intervention Post-operative mRS score Perioperative stroke rate Perioperative hemorrhage Bypass patency Notes
Kuroda et al. [23] 2014 Prospective, single-arm 25 62.9 ± 11.0 Severe ICA or MCA (90%) occlusion, no or small infarct on MRI, Type 3 ischemia and elevated oxygen extraction fraction - 1 (4%) 0 (0%) - “Double” bypass—frontal and parietal STA anastomosed to MCA.
White et al. [19] 2019 Retrospective, case series 35 55 (22–74) Carotid or MCA stenosis with failure of optimal medical therapy (recurrent strokes or TIAs), or perfusion-dependent neurological exam - 3 (8.6%) 0 (0%) 33 (94%) -
Steinberg et al. [20] 2020 Retrospective, case series 17 62 ± 11 Progressive ischemic symptoms (TIA, misery perfusion), ongoing ischemic penumbra on MRI or CTP despite medical management 13 (85%) patients ≤ 2 3 (17.6%) 3 (17.6%) 17 (100%) -
Haynes et al. [21] 2021 Retrospective, case series 8 60 ± 6 Symptomatic recurrent or rapidly progressive stroke or TIA with hypoperfusion despite optimal medical management or endovascular therapy Median 1 (IQR 0–3) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (100%) One patient did not recover from presenting stroke and expired 4 months post-op due to bilateral strokes
Wessels et al. [8] 2021 Retrospective study 179 (186 total bypasses) 58 ± 12 Symptomatic VOD with recurrent TIAs or stroke under best medical management with impaired cerebrovascular reserve (≥ 30% reduction in baseline perfusion of affected territory during acetazolamide challenge) - 8 (4.3%) 3 (1.6%) 175 (94%) Patients stratified as atherosclerotic ICA occlusion vs atherosclerotic multivessel disease
Aono et al. [24] 2021 Case report 1 69 Left ICA occlusion with TIA and multiple aneurysms on DAPT - 0 (0%) - 1 (100%) STA and posterior auricular artery-MCA bypass. Improvement of average Wechsler Adult Intelligence score from 71 to 89.25
Housley et al. [22] 2022 Retrospective, case series 27 59.9 ± 10.1 Medical optimization, diagnosis of compromised or impaired cerebrovascular reserve 17 (63%) mRS 1 to 2 at last follow-up 2 (6.3%) - 30 of 32 bypasses (93.8%) Focus on distal internal carotid or proximal MCA stenosis, multiple EC-IC bypass techniques
Zhao et al. [7] 2022 Retrospective, case series 12 55.8 ± 6.7 Patients with ICA occlusion with > 2 DWI-MRI proven strokes or TIAs in 6 months on best medical therapy with mRS ≤ 3, 40–70 years, and no severe heart disease - 1 (8.3%) 1 (8.3%) 11 (91.7%) Double bypass, Post-op median modified Barthel Index 82.5 (IQR 75–90 from 41 (35–50.25)

Discussion

The STA-MCA bypass is a versatile open vascular intervention for flow diversion and augmentation that has fallen out of favor in non-Moyamoya VOD as a result of failure to demonstrate benefit in two large trials [16, 17]. In the interim, stroke and TIA outcomes have greatly improved due to advances in medical and endovascular therapies. However, there remains a subset of patients with high-risk cerebrovascular disease who go on to have recurrent ischemic strokes that carry significant morbidity and mortality. We have demonstrated that with expert surgical and anesthesia care, STA-MCA bypass significantly improved the mRS by -1.5 points from the time of presentation to follow-up for this selected group. Although the cohort was small, only 1 patient (5%) had a post-operative stroke, similar to the medical management arms of COSS (2.0%, ipsilateral ischemic stroke) and SAMMPRIS (5.8%) as well as to other post-COSS evaluations of bypass (Table 6) [9, 17]. Indeed, a recent systematic review of EC-IC bypass for VOD suggested a trend towards decreased perioperative (5.7%) and overall stroke (9.1%) rates over time [25]. The majority had received evidence-based medical therapy with aspirin (100%) or DAPT (70.0%) and had comorbidities commensurate with increased stroke risk. These data suggest that STA-MCA bypass should remain an option for patients with recurrent strokes who fail medical therapy.

The EC-IC Bypass and COSS trials are landmark accomplishments within neurosurgery. However, neither trial required patients to have developed recurrent stroke prior to entry. Specific presentations, such as crescendo or limb-shaking TIAs, chronic retinal ischemia, and severe intracranial large artery occlusion represent roughly 10% of ischemic strokes and are associated with a high risk of recurrence of 15–20% in the setting of medical therapy [46, 8, 9]. Indeed, a retrospective analysis of 179 German patients during 2012–2019, contemporaneous with our study, suggested the current population referred for bypass for VOD had frequent multivessel disease (52%), recurrent ischemic symptoms (80%), and greater comorbidities [8]. Our study provided evidence of improved functional outcomes following bypass in one of the largest post-COSS series of patients with recurrent ischemic disease. This benefit has been corroborated by other centers [7, 1922]. In addition to work by Haynes and colleagues, Zhao et al. showed improved imaging and cognitive outcomes in 12 patients with recurrent strokes due to intracranial large artery occlusion, with only one perioperative TIA [7]. White et al. demonstrated excellent graft patency of 94% with only 3 perioperative strokes in an unselected subset of 35 patients with symptomatic VOD treated with bypass after publication of COSS [19]. Further, Steinberg et al. reported a role for rescue bypass for 17 patients acutely presenting with refractory or progressive VOD, with 85% of patients achieving a mRS score of ≤ 2 over 10 months of follow-up [20]. A recently published study further demonstrated the safety of direct EC-IC bypass using a variety of techniques, with a perioperative stroke rate of 6.3% [22]. Taken together, the published studies demonstrate the safety and feasibility of bypass for patients with complex or high-risk disease.

Similar to the above series and post-hoc analyses of the COSS trial, our bypass patency rate was extremely high, with imaging displaying evidence of improved perfusion [18]. While this surgical result is remarkable at face-value, the question remains regarding the etiology of perioperative stroke in the original trials of EC-IC bypass if unrelated to the operation itself. Compared to these RCTs, our study’s non-stroke complications (3 patients with seizures and 1 perioperative infection) are commensurate with those reported. Further, given the single-surgeon nature of this study, technical factors associated with the surgery are controlled, whereas both COSS and the EC-IC Bypass trials had limited standardization of anesthesia, neuro-intensive care, and nursing [4, 5]. Our outcomes suggest that standardization of perioperative management post-COSS mitigate the risk of stroke. Data from two additional trials may identify risk factors for perioperative stroke and provide evidence supporting bypass for atherosclerotic VOD. The Japanese EC-IC Bypass Trial (JET) was a multicenter RCT assessing the role of STA-MCA bypass plus BMT versus BMT alone in patients with reduced cerebral blood flow on single-photon emission computed tomography from chronic ICA or MCA occlusion [4, 23]. One-hundred and ninety-six patients were randomized 50:50 to each arm, with interim analyses showing a statistically significant reduction in the primary outcome of major stroke and death at interim analysis (5.1% vs. 14.3% for surgically-treated vs medically-treated patients) [26]. Unfortunately, this study has not yet been published in an English-language journal, precluding detailed analysis of perioperative stroke or complication risk [23, 26, 27]. The Carotid and Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusion Surgery Study (CMOSS) was conducted in China with planned randomization of 330 patients with ICA or MCA occlusion and hemodynamic insufficiency to EC-IC bypass with BMT versus BMT alone; it has been completed as of March 2020 (NCT01758614) [28]. The primary study outcome was stroke from randomization to 30 days post-operatively and ipsilateral ischemic stroke within 2 years. Given the importance of assessing perioperative risk, the results of CMOSS are anxiously awaited. Future reports should address how perioperative risks might be mitigated and standardized to prevent early stroke.

Our study demonstrated functional improvement as measured by mRS score. While single-point changes in the mRS score are clinically relevant, the seven-level ordinal scale has been subjected to dichotomous analyses throughout its use as an endpoint in stroke RCTs; further, repeated measures of the mRS score highlight a general increase due to post-stroke recovery irrespective of treatment [29, 30]. Concerns about reproducibility and increased emphasis on patient-centered outcomes and quality of life have resulted in increased use of adjunct measures [29]. An important ancillary study to COSS was the Randomized Evaluation of Carotid Occlusion and Neurocognition (RECON) trial, which hoped to identify whether patients receiving bypass in COSS had improved or preserved neurocognition at 2 years. Unfortunately, this study was not completed due to termination of COSS, though analyses of the 29 (13 surgical, 16 medical) patients remaining at the 2-year endpoint showed no difference in cognitive change between arms when controlling for age, education, and depression [31]. However, there are reports of cognitive improvement following EC-IC bypass on neuropsychiatric testing [24]. Likewise, assessment of follow-up mRS and the Barthel Index are planned for inclusion in CMOSS [28]. These findings hint at a role for assessment of cognitive and quality of life outcomes following bypass in the post-COSS era.

Further, direct STA-MCA bypass may not be the only option with benefit in high-risk vaso-occlusive disease [32]. While indirect bypass methods were previously thought to be ineffective for non-Moyamoya VOD, the recently published results of the phase II Encephaloduroarteriosynangiosis Revascularization for Symptomatic Intracranial Arterial Stenosis (ERSIAS) trial showed a rate of 9.6% (5 of 52 patients) for the composite primary endpoint of 30-day postoperative stroke or death or stroke in the territory of the bypassed artery beyond 30 days [33]. Further studies are warranted identify which patients or subgroups have high-risk disease phenotypes that will be most responsive to any or all of these interventions.

Limitations

This study represents one of the largest post-COSS series of STA-MCA bypass for non-Moyamoya atherosclerotic VOD, but is limited by its small sample size, single-center and retrospective nature. Given the small population of patients with each of the individual recurrent stroke phenotypes above, we instead analyzed this population in aggregate. The median follow-up duration in this study was 7.7 (1.2–43.7) months. This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center with a large catchment area, with a combination of location and patient specific factors resulting in limited follow-up. Nonetheless, this study represents an important contribution to the growing body of post-COSS literature of bypass for VOD following failure of medical therapy in high-risk stroke subtypes.

Conclusions

STA-MCA bypass is a time-honored procedure that has utility in a variety of neurosurgical settings. Rigorous trials have identified a risk of perioperative stroke following bypass for non-Moyamoya cerebrovascular disease in non-refractory populations. We demonstrate a very low stroke risk in one of the largest cohorts since publication of these trials, with improvement in postoperative functional outcomes. For patients who have recurrent strokes despite maximal medical therapy, referral for bypass at centers of expertise may be beneficial.

Supporting information

S1 File. Minimal data set.

Contains de-identified underlying data used to conduct the study.

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, Cockroft KM, Gutierrez J, Lombardi-Hill D, et al. 2021 Guideline for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack: A Guideline From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2021;52(7):e364–e467. doi: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Murphy SL, Kochanek KD, Xu J, Arias E. Mortality in the United States, 2020. NCDHS Data Brief. 2021. doi: 10.15620/cdc:112079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Virani SS, Alonso A, Aparicio HJ, Benjamin EJ, Bittencourt MS, Callaway CW, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2021;143(8):e254–e743. Epub 20210127. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000950 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Esposito G, Amin-Hanjani S, Regli L. Role of and Indications for Bypass Surgery After Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS)? Stroke. 2016;47(1):282–90. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Amin-Hanjani S, Barker FGI, Charbel FT, Connolly ESJ, Morcos JJ, Thompson BG, et al. Extracranial-Intracranial Bypass for Stroke—Is This the End of the Line or a Bump in the Road? Neurosurgery. 2012;71(3):557–61. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182621488 00006123-201209000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Reynolds MR, Derdeyn CP, Grubb RL, Powers WJ, Zipfel GJ. Extracranial-intracranial bypass for ischemic cerebrovascular disease: what have we learned from the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study? Neurosurgical Focus FOC. 2014;36(1):E9. doi: 10.3171/2013.10.FOCUS13427 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zhao H, Tong X, Wang X, Ding M, Zhang K. Ischemic stroke following STA-MCA double bypass. Transl Neurosci. 2022;13(1):20–9. Epub 20220210. doi: 10.1515/tnsci-2022-0211 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wessels L, Hecht N, Vajkoczy P. Patients Receiving Extracranial to Intracranial Bypass for Atherosclerotic Vessel Occlusion Today Differ Significantly From the COSS Population. Stroke. 2021;52(10):e599–e604. Epub 20210826. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033991 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chimowitz MI, Lynn MJ, Derdeyn CP, Turan TN, Fiorella D, Lane BF, et al. Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):993–1003. Epub 20110907. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105335 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Andrews BT, Chater NL, Weinstein PR. Extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass for middle cerebral artery stenosis and occlusion: Operative results in 65 cases. Journal of neurosurgery. 1985;62(6):831–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yasargil GM, Yonekawa Y. Results of microsurgical extra-intracranial arterial bypass in the treatment of cerebral ischemia. Neurosurgery. 1977;1(1):22–4. doi: 10.1227/00006123-197707000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chater N. Neurosurgical extracranial-intracranial bypass for stroke: with 400 cases. Neurological Research. 1983;5(2):1–9. doi: 10.1080/01616412.1983.11739637 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Weinstein RP, Rodriguez y Baena R, Chater LN. Results of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass for intracranial internal carotid artery stenosis: review of 105 cases. Neurosurgery. 1984;15(6):787–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sundt TM Jr, Whisnant JP, Fode NC, Piepgras DG, Houser OW, editors. Results, complications, and follow-up of 415 bypass operations for occlusive disease of the carotid system. Mayo Clinic Proceedings; 1985: Elsevier. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gratzl O, Schmiedek P, Spetzler R, Steinhoff H, Marguth F. Clinical experience with extra-intracranial arterial anastomosis in 65 cases. Journal of Neurosurgery. 1976;44(3):313–24. doi: 10.3171/jns.1976.44.3.0313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Group TEIBS. Failure of Extracranial–Intracranial Arterial Bypass to Reduce the Risk of Ischemic Stroke. New England Journal of Medicine. 1985;313(19):1191–200. doi: 10.1056/nejm198511073131904 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Powers WJ, Clarke WR, Grubb RL, Videen TO, Adams HP, Derdeyn CP, et al. Extracranial-Intracranial Bypass Surgery for Stroke Prevention in Hemodynamic Cerebral Ischemia: The Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2011;306(18):1983–92. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1610 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Grubb RL Jr., Powers WJ, Clarke WR, Videen TO, Adams HP Jr., Derdeyn CP. Surgical results of the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study. J Neurosurg. 2013;118(1):25–33. Epub 20121026. doi: 10.3171/2012.9.JNS12551 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.White TG, Abou-Al-Shaar H, Park J, Katz J, Langer DJ, Dehdashti AR. Cerebral revascularization after the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study: what candidates remain, and can we do better? Neurosurg Focus. 2019;46(2):E3. doi: 10.3171/2018.11.FOCUS18536 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Steinberg JA, Rennert RC, Ravina K, Strickland BA, Russin JJ. Rescue Cerebral Revascularization in Patients with Progressive Steno-Occlusive Ischemia of the Anterior Intracranial Circulation. World Neurosurg. 2020;133:e609–e18. Epub 20190926. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.09.102 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Haynes J, Kronenburg A, Raz E, Rostanski S, Yaghi S, Ishida K, et al. Superficial Temporal Artery to Middle Cerebral Artery Cranial Bypass for Nonmoyamoya Steno-Occlusive Disease in Patients Who Failed Optimal Medical Treatment: A Case Series. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2021;20(5):444–55. doi: 10.1093/ons/opaa458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Housley SB, Vakharia K, Gong AD, Waqas M, Rho K, Levy EI, et al. Extracranial-to-Intracranial Bypass for Distal Internal Carotid Artery and/or Proximal Middle Cerebral Artery Steno-Occlusive Disease: A Case Series of Clinical Outcomes at a Single, High-Volume Cerebrovascular Center. Operative Neurosurgery. 2022;23(3):177–81. doi: 10.1227/ons.0000000000000280 01787389-202209000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kuroda S, Kawabori M, Hirata K, Shiga T, Kashiwazaki D, Houkin K, et al. Clinical significance of STA-MCA double anastomosis for hemodynamic compromise in post-JET/COSS era. Acta Neurochirurgica. 2014;156(1):77–83. doi: 10.1007/s00701-013-1961-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Aono T, Ono H, Inoue T, Tanishima T, Tamura A, Saito I. Impact of Extracranial-Intracranial Bypass on Cognitive Function in a Patient with Chronic Cerebral Ischemia. Asian J Neurosurg. 2021;16(1):212–6. Epub 20210223. doi: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_485_20 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nguyen VN, Motiwala M, Parikh K, Miller LE, Barats M, Nickele CM, et al. Extracranial-Intracranial Cerebral Revascularization for Atherosclerotic Vessel Occlusion: An Updated Systematic Review of the Literature. World Neurosurgery. 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Group JETS. Japanese EC-IC Bypass Trial (JET Study). Surg Cereb Stroke (JPN). 2002;30(6):434–7. doi: 10.2335/scs.30.434 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ogasawara K, Ogawa A. [JET study (Japanese EC-IC Bypass Trial)]. Nihon Rinsho. 2006;64 Suppl 7:524–7. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ma Y, Gu Y, Tong X, Wang J, Kuai D, Wang D, et al. The Carotid and Middle cerebral artery Occlusion Surgery Study (CMOSS): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):544. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1600-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Broderick JP, Adeoye O, Elm J. Evolution of the Modified Rankin Scale and Its Use in Future Stroke Trials. Stroke. 2017;48(7):2007–12. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.017866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chye A, Hackett ML, Hankey GJ, Lundström E, Almeida OP, Gommans J, et al. Repeated Measures of Modified Rankin Scale Scores to Assess Functional Recovery From Stroke: AFFINITY Study Findings. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2022;11(16):e025425. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.025425 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Marshall RS, Festa JR, Cheung YK, Pavol MA, Derdeyn CP, Clarke WR, et al. Randomized Evaluation of Carotid Occlusion and Neurocognition (RECON) trial: main results. Neurology. 2014;82(9):744–51. Epub 20140129. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000167 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wong GK, Poon WS. Time to reflect on surgery and neuro-intervention for intracranial atherosclerotic diseases. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19(2):222–3. Epub 20120112. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2011.07.019 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gonzalez NR, Jiang H, Lyden P, Song S, Schlick K, Dumitrascu O, et al. Encephaloduroarteriosynangiosis (EDAS) revascularization for symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic steno-occlusive (ERSIAS) Phase-II objective performance criterion trial. Int J Stroke. 2021;16(6):701–9. Epub 20201029. doi: 10.1177/1747493020967256 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tatsushi Mutoh

18 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-03952Revisiting Flow Augmentation Bypass for Cerebrovascular Atherosclerotic Vaso-occlusive Disease: An Institutional Study and Review of The LiteraturePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abdelgadir,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

All reviewers are concerned with small number and its related recurrence/survival rate, as compared to previous larger RCT. I realize they have been addressed in the limitation section; however the authors should understand if it is methodologically acceptable or not (e.g. sample size to derive suitable statistical power). 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 02 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tatsushi Mutoh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a single-institutional retrospective review of patients receiving STA-MCA bypass from 2013 to 2021 for atherosclerotic steno-occlusive disease. The primary outcome evaluated was time to post-operative stroke. A total of 20 patients met inclusion criteria (2.5/year). Only one patient (5%) developed a stroke at approximately 2 months post op. A total of 3 seizures and one infection occurred. They showed an improvement in mRS as well as continued patency of all 20 bypasses.

Specific Comments:

• The authors should clearly mention that improvement in mRS likely has a contribution to recovery from the patient’s initial stroke.

• The authors should describe how many direct bypasses are being done for other conditions during this time-period, 2.5/year is a low amount to be considered a higher-volume center for these even if the results are good.

o Is this low number due to a strict selection criterion or are others in the group performing surgery as well? One would assume in a high-volume tertiary referral academic center (based on the selection criteria described) that this number would be higher.

• The median follow-up time is less than 1 year in an 8-year series, why is this?

o If the follow up is so short, how can you know these patients did not have a stroke or disability in the long term? This should be clearly spelled out in the limitations of this study.

• The authors should reference the recent systematic review in their comparison to published studies. There are several more articles than the 8 studies they mention that are recent and relevant to this manuscript. 1

• How was bypass patency assessed?

Overall Assessment:

This is a small retrospective study that does not show novel findings. However, the authors correctly conclude (in our opinion) that there is a patient population that still can benefit from revascularization EC-IC surgery in the modern era. The patient’s receiving surgery now typically include patients with refractory watershed strokes (which differs from COSS). Additionally, there continues to be improvement in imaging, surgical technique, and postoperative care. The 14.4% perioperative stroke rate in COSS is significantly different than what is presented in this study. This article should be accepted once the revisions above are addressed.

References:

1. Nguyen VN, Motiwala M, Parikh K, et al. Extracranial-Intracranial (EC-IC) Cerebral Revascularization for Atherosclerotic Vessel Occlusion: An Updated Systematic Review of the Literature. World Neurosurg. Feb 7 2023;doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2023.02.003

Reviewer #2: The authors retrospectively reviewed previous STA-MCA bypasses performed at their institution. Patients with recurrent or advanced stroke were evaluated, in part by CT perfusion studies. They performed an excellent procedure with an average blockade time of less than 15 minutes and a 100% patency rate; of the 20 patients, one (5%) had a recurrence during the observation period, but they stated that STA-MCA bypass is an effective method for recurrent strokes.

The results of the EC-IC bypass trial by Barnett et al. led to numerous criticisms by many neurosurgeons that EC-IC bypass is effective if the indications are not wrong, or that there were technical problems in the surgical group. This criticism arose from the impression that recurrent cerebral infarction could be prevented in the form of this paper.

Since this impressionistic criticism did not go far enough, the JET study and the COSS study were conducted to investigate a limited number of patients by accurately diagnosing the pathophysiology, evaluating cerebral blood flow using PET and SPECT, and assessing reserve capacity.

The authors' study is a case series without a control group, and the time since the first ischemic attack varies; the control patients are different from those in Abdurauf et al.'s acute bypass for progressive stroke. Although CT perfusion was performed in some patients, it was not an adequate assessment of blood flow. In addition, ischemia in the ACA and PCA regions is included, not only ischemia in the MCA region. It is unclear whether these were the result of evaluation of collateral blood flow by cerebral angiography or other means, and whether blood flow could be provided by STA-MCA bypass, which does not increase blood flow in the arteries in the direct perfusion zone.

The recurrence of one of the 20 patients is not an event that would be indicated by a survival curve, and again, in the absence of a control group, it can only be explained allegorically.

Reviewer #3: The authors present a retrospective, single-center review of patients undergoing EC/IC bypass for non-moyamoya vaso-occlusive disease that is refractory to medical therapy. They report reasonable outcomes that are similar to prior reports. They provide a discussion of the relevant literature and conclude that referral for EC/IC bypass in this patient population is a reasonable option and may be beneficial.

The article has some minor errors in grammar but is otherwise well written. The authors report similar numbers of cases to the cited literature and do not seem to add anything novel to the current fund of knowledge. Multiple centers have reported their experience and it is largely similar. In this reviewer's opinion the addition of another small series does not add anything significant to the current literature.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript is technically sound and data support the conclusions.

Statistical analysis has been performed appropriately.

The authors made all data in their manuscript fully available.

The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

I congratulate authors for sharing their experience on this retrospective cohort of patients receiving STA-MCA bypass in atherosclerotic vaso-occlusive disease (VOD).

I fully agree with their conclusion that STA-MCA bypass should remain an option for patients with VOD with recurrent strokes who fail medical therapy.

I would appreciate if authors expand on the surgical details regarding those patients with complications:

1.-One patient with postoperative scalp infection: Was this patient the one requiring double barrel bypass? What is the average size of the incision? Was a linear incision performed to harvest parietal branch of STA? Or curvilinear incision for frontal branch of STA? Or was a Y-type of incision performed?

2.-For the patient with one stroke, or the three with seizures: How was the management of the micro-cortical vessels? Where those vessels electrocoagulated to allow mobilization of the recipient M4 vessel? (Sharafeddin F, Lopez-Gonzalez MA. Micro-clipping of small cortical branches during extracranial to intracranial bypass for complete cortical blood supply preservation. Neurochirurgie. 2022 Oct;68(5):546-549. doi: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2022.02.005. Epub 2022 Mar 7. PMID: 35272857).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Toshikazu Kimura

Reviewer #3: Yes: Jonathan Russin

Reviewer #4: Yes: Miguel Angel Lopez-Gonzalez, MD

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 May 19;18(5):e0285982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285982.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 May 2023

Response to Reviewers

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We thank the editor and the reviewers for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript. We have re-formatted the article and figures to meet PLOS ONE guidelines. The minimal data set underlying the study is included as supporting file S1. The corresponding author has validated their ORCID iD.

All reviewers are concerned with small number and its related recurrence/survival rate, as compared to previous larger RCT. I realize they have been addressed in the limitation section; however, the authors should understand if it is methodologically acceptable or not (e.g., sample size to derive suitable statistical power).

Thank you for raising this important point. As we have highlighted in our manuscript, both the EC-IC Bypass and COSS trials were landmark studies not only due to their findings, but also due to overcoming the significant difficulty of conducting randomized clinical trials in a surgical subspecialty. However, as suggested by the large study by Wessels et al., there is a subset of patients who are very high-risk for recurrent disease that may derive benefit from the procedure. Owing to rarity and the necessity of intervention in these patients, randomization in a new study may be difficult. Thus, a descriptive analysis of our experience with these high-risk patients is an important piece of a growing body of evidence that may eventually be practice changing for neurosurgery as a whole. Accordingly, we have edited our limitations section to read:

Nonetheless, this study represents an important contribution to the growing body of post-COSS literature of bypass for VOD following failure of medical therapy in high-risk stroke subtypes.

Reviewer #1: The authors present a single-institutional retrospective review of patients receiving STA-MCA bypass from 2013 to 2021 for atherosclerotic steno-occlusive disease. The primary outcome evaluated was time to post-operative stroke. A total of 20 patients met inclusion criteria (2.5/year). Only one patient (5%) developed a stroke at approximately 2 months post op. A total of 3 seizures and one infection occurred. They showed an improvement in mRS as well as continued patency of all 20 bypasses.

Specific Comments:

• The authors should clearly mention that improvement in mRS likely has a contribution to recovery from the patient’s initial stroke.

We appreciate the opportunity to correct this oversight. We have addressed this in the discussion section of our article, which now reads:

While single-point changes in the mRS score are clinically relevant, the seven-level ordinal scale has been subjected to dichotomous analyses throughout its use as an endpoint in stroke RCTs; further, repeated measures of the mRS score highlight a general increase due to post-stroke recovery irrespective of treatment.

In addition, we have cited the recent study by Chye et al. highlighting this observation [1].

[1] Chye A, Hackett ML, Hankey GJ, et al. Repeated Measures of Modified Rankin Scale Scores to Assess Functional Recovery From Stroke: AFFINITY Study Findings. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11(16):e025425. doi:10.1161/JAHA.121.025425

• The authors should describe how many direct bypasses are being done for other conditions during this time-period, 2.5/year is a low amount to be considered a higher-volume center for these even if the results are good.

We thank Reviewer #1 for raising this important comment. During the study period, 79 total EC-IC bypasses were performed by the senior author (A.R.Z). 39 of these were for Moyamoya disease; an additional 20 received EC-IC bypass for aneurysm. The remainder are represented in the study. To better indicate our experience with these procedures, we have added the following to the Results section, subsection “Patient clinical and surgical characteristics”:

During the study period, 79 patients were treated with EC-IC bypass. Of those excluded, 39 (49.4%) received bypass for Moyamoya disease and 20 (25.3%) for aneurysm or vertebrobasilar insufficiency. The remaining 20 patients received open vascular surgery for atherosclerotic VOD.

We have also edited the methods section to read as follows:

Patients who were undergoing STA-MCA bypass for Moyamoya disease, vertebrobasilar insufficiency, or aneurysm were excluded from the study. Other donor-recipient vessel pairs and bypasses for tumors were similarly excluded.

o Is this low number due to a strict selection criterion or are others in the group performing surgery as well? One would assume in a high-volume tertiary referral academic center (based on the selection criteria described) that this number would be higher.

We believe the responses above should clarify this question – the majority of EC-IC bypass cases performed by the senior author during the study period were not for the indication of vaso-occlusive disease. The reviewer’s assumption regarding a multi-surgeon setting is correct: we conducted this study as a single-surgeon series to mitigate differences in technique and experience.

• The median follow-up time is less than 1 year in an 8-year series, why is this?

Thank you for highlighting this important point. The median follow-up duration in the study was 7.7 months (range 1.2 – 43.7 months). As discussed above and in the manuscript, this study was conducted at a tertiary referral center with a large catchment area. Due to factors specific to this population, including a high attrition rate, local follow-up is typically pursued following initial post-operative clinic visits in patients without major complications.

o If the follow up is so short, how can you know these patients did not have a stroke or disability in the long term? This should be clearly spelled out in the limitations of this study.

We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our manuscript and agree that this limited follow-up is a limitation of our study. In keeping with our above response, we have edited the Limitations section in the Discussion to read the following:

The median follow-up duration in this study was 7.7 (1.2 – 43.7) months. This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center with a large catchment area, with a combination of location and patient specific factors resulting in limited follow-up.

It is our hope that this response has satisfied the relevant questions.

• The authors should reference the recent systematic review in their comparison to published studies. There are several more articles than the 8 studies they mention that are recent and relevant to this manuscript. [1]

We thank Reviewer #1 for highlighting this important systematic review, which was not published at the time of initial submission. While our review was not systematic in nature, we only included articles in which all patients were treated post-COSS; articles published after 2011 that had overlapping times of treatment were not included. Several of the articles termed “post-COSS” by Nguyen et al. do not meet this criterion. Nonetheless, we have incorporated the conclusions of this article into the Discussion as follows:

Indeed, a recent systematic review of EC-IC bypass for VOD suggested a trend towards decreased perioperative (5.7%) and overall stroke (9.1%) rates over time.(25)

• How was bypass patency assessed?

The authors apologize for this important oversight and are thankful for the opportunity to correct it. We have edited the Methods section, subsection “Patient selection and operation” as follows:

Bypass patency is confirmed intra-operatively with indocyanine green videoangiography and post-operatively via CT angiogram.

Overall Assessment:

This is a small retrospective study that does not show novel findings. However, the authors correctly conclude (in our opinion) that there is a patient population that still can benefit from revascularization EC-IC surgery in the modern era. The patient’s receiving surgery now typically include patients with refractory watershed strokes (which differs from COSS). Additionally, there continues to be improvement in imaging, surgical technique, and postoperative care. The 14.4% perioperative stroke rate in COSS is significantly different than what is presented in this study. This article should be accepted once the revisions above are addressed.

Many thanks to Reviewer #1 for their favorable assessment of our study.

References:

1. Nguyen VN, Motiwala M, Parikh K, et al. Extracranial-Intracranial (EC-IC) Cerebral Revascularization for Atherosclerotic Vessel Occlusion: An Updated Systematic Review of the Literature. World Neurosurg. Feb 7 2023;doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2023.02.003

Reviewer #2: The authors retrospectively reviewed previous STA-MCA bypasses performed at their institution. Patients with recurrent or advanced stroke were evaluated, in part by CT perfusion studies. They performed an excellent procedure with an average blockade time of less than 15 minutes and a 100% patency rate; of the 20 patients, one (5%) had a recurrence during the observation period, but they stated that STA-MCA bypass is an effective method for recurrent strokes.

The results of the EC-IC bypass trial by Barnett et al. led to numerous criticisms by many neurosurgeons that EC-IC bypass is effective if the indications are not wrong, or that there were technical problems in the surgical group. This criticism arose from the impression that recurrent cerebral infarction could be prevented in the form of this paper.

Since this impressionistic criticism did not go far enough, the JET study and the COSS study were conducted to investigate a limited number of patients by accurately diagnosing the pathophysiology, evaluating cerebral blood flow using PET and SPECT, and assessing reserve capacity.

The authors' study is a case series without a control group, and the time since the first ischemic attack varies; the control patients are different from those in Abdurauf et al.'s acute bypass for progressive stroke. Although CT perfusion was performed in some patients, it was not an adequate assessment of blood flow. In addition, ischemia in the ACA and PCA regions is included, not only ischemia in the MCA region. It is unclear whether these were the result of evaluation of collateral blood flow by cerebral angiography or other means, and whether blood flow could be provided by STA-MCA bypass, which does not increase blood flow in the arteries in the direct perfusion zone.

The recurrence of one of the 20 patients is not an event that would be indicated by a survival curve, and again, in the absence of a control group, it can only be explained allegorically.

We thank Reviewer #2 for their favorable assessment of our article and accurate summation of the literature that led us to conduct the present study. We have attempted to recognize the limitations correctly assessed by this reviewer in our article and hope that this is sufficient. All decisions regarding statistical description and data representation made in this article were conducted in collaboration with two biostatisticians.

Reviewer #3: The authors present a retrospective, single-center review of patients undergoing EC/IC bypass for non-Moyamoya vaso-occlusive disease that is refractory to medical therapy. They report reasonable outcomes that are similar to prior reports. They provide a discussion of the relevant literature and conclude that referral for EC/IC bypass in this patient population is a reasonable option and may be beneficial.

The article has some minor errors in grammar but is otherwise well written. The authors report similar numbers of cases to the cited literature and do not seem to add anything novel to the current fund of knowledge. Multiple centers have reported their experience and it is largely similar. In this reviewer's opinion the addition of another small series does not add anything significant to the current literature.

We greatly appreciate Reviewer #3’s attention to our article. As highlighted in our responses above, we believe that experiences with this surgical technique in high-risk populations may form the basis of practice given the challenges to randomization in such a patient cohort. Additionally, we have attempted to correct any grammatical errors noted by the reviewer. We thank the reviewer for the opportunity to further strengthen our article.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript is technically sound, and data support the conclusions.

Statistical analysis has been performed appropriately.

The authors made all data in their manuscript fully available.

The manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English.

I congratulate authors for sharing their experience on this retrospective cohort of patients receiving STA-MCA bypass in atherosclerotic vaso-occlusive disease (VOD).

I fully agree with their conclusion that STA-MCA bypass should remain an option for patients with VOD with recurrent strokes who fail medical therapy.

The authors are greatly appreciative of Reviewer #4’s favorable assessment of our article and are in agreement regarding the utility of this technique.

I would appreciate if authors expand on the surgical details regarding those patients with complications:

1.-One patient with postoperative scalp infection: Was this patient the one requiring double barrel bypass? What is the average size of the incision? Was a linear incision performed to harvest parietal branch of STA? Or curvilinear incision for frontal branch of STA? Or was a Y-type of incision performed?

We appreciate the opportunity to describe this complication; we did not previously include the details as we felt they were irrelevant to the present study. This patient underwent single barrel bypass. They underwent a groin procedure during hospitalization and presented post-operatively with drainage from scalp and groin wounds. Groin cultures grew MRSA, and this resolved following IV vancomycin treatment.

Regarding general incision technique, the senior author’s typical practice is to conduct Doppler ultrasound to identify the path of the superficial temporal artery. The resultant linear or curvilinear incision is made following the artery to expose 8 – 10 cm of the donor vessel only, with minimal additional dissection to expose the parietal branch of the STA. We have included this in the manuscript Methods section, subsection “Patient selection and operation” as the following:

Once in the operating room, the senior author’s typical practice is to conduct Doppler ultrasound to identify the path of the superficial temporal artery. The resultant linear or curvilinear incision is made following the artery to expose 8 – 10 cm of the donor vessel only, with minimal additional dissection to expose the parietal branch of the STA.

2.-For the patient with one stroke, or the three with seizures: How was the management of the micro-cortical vessels? Where those vessels electrocoagulated to allow mobilization of the recipient M4 vessel? (Sharafeddin F, Lopez-Gonzalez MA. Micro-clipping of small cortical branches during extracranial to intracranial bypass for complete cortical blood supply preservation. Neurochirurgie. 2022 Oct;68(5):546-549. doi: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2022.02.005. Epub 2022 Mar 7. PMID: 35272857).

In the senior author’s practice, electrocoagulation of the micro-cortical vessels is typically avoided. A recipient vessel is identified that does not require manipulation or sacrifice of micro-cortical vessels. This is included in the Methods section, subsection “Patient selection and operation” as the following:

A recipient site requiring no sacrifice or manipulation of microcortical vessels is selected.

The study authors thank the editor and reviewers for their time taken to improve this manuscript. It is our hope that the changes made have greatly improved the quality of the article and that it is found suitable for publication in this journal.

Sincerely,

The authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Tatsushi Mutoh

7 May 2023

Revisiting flow augmentation bypass for cerebrovascular atherosclerotic vaso-occlusive disease: Single-surgeon series and review of the literature

PONE-D-23-03952R1

Dear Dr. Abdelgadir,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Tatsushi Mutoh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Tatsushi Mutoh

10 May 2023

PONE-D-23-03952R1

Revisiting flow augmentation bypass for cerebrovascular atherosclerotic vaso-occlusive disease: Single-surgeon series and review of the literature

Dear Dr. Abdelgadir:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Tatsushi Mutoh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Minimal data set.

    Contains de-identified underlying data used to conduct the study.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES