Optimized Duration of Clopidogrel Therapy Following Treatment with the Endeavor Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent in Real-World Clinical Practice (OPTIMIZE) Trial: Rationale and design of a large-scale, randomized, multicenter study

Background Current recommendations for antithrombotic therapy after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation include prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel >= 12 months. However, the impact of such a regimen for all patients receiving any DES system remains unclear based on scientific evidence available to date. Also, several other shortcomings have been identified with prolonged DAPT, including bleeding complications, compliance, and cost. The second-generation Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) has demonstrated efficacy and safety, despite short duration DAPT (3 months) in the majority of studies. Still, the safety and clinical impact of short-term DAPT with E-ZES in the real world is yet to be determined. Methods The OPTIMIZE trial is a large, prospective, multicenter, randomized (1: 1) non-inferiority clinical evaluation of short-term (3 months) vs long-term (12-months) DAPT in patients undergoing E-ZES implantation in daily clinical practice. Overall, 3,120 patients were enrolled at 33 clinical sites in Brazil. The primary composite endpoint is death (any cause), myocardial infarction, cerebral vascular accident, and major bleeding at 12-month clinical follow-up post-index procedure. Conclusions The OPTIMIZE clinical trial will determine the clinical implications of DAPT duration with the second generation E-ZES in real-world patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. (Am Heart J 2012;164:810-816.e3.)

Effect of Complete Revascularization on 10-Year Survival of Patients With Stable Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease MASS II Trial

Background-The importance of complete revascularization remains unclear and contradictory. This current investigation compares the effect of complete revascularization on 10-year survival of patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) who were randomly assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Methods and Results-This is a post hoc analysis of the Second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II), which is a randomized trial comparing treatments in patients with stable multivessel CAD, and preserved systolic ventricular function. We analyzed patients who underwent surgery (CABG) or stent angioplasty (PCI). The survival free of overall mortality of patients who underwent complete (CR) or incomplete revascularization (IR) was compared. Of the 408 patients randomly assigned to mechanical revascularization, 390 patients (95.6%) underwent the assigned treatment; complete revascularization was achieved in 224 patients (57.4%), 63.8% of those in the CABG group and 36.2% in the PCI group (P = 0.001). The IR group had more prior myocardial infarction than the CR group (56.2% X 39.2%, P = 0.01). During a 10-year follow-up, the survival free of cardiovascular mortality was significantly different among patients in the 2 groups (CR, 90.6% versus IR, 84.4%; P = 0.04). This was mainly driven by an increased cardiovascular specific mortality in individuals with incomplete revascularization submitted to PCI (P = 0.05). Conclusions-Our study suggests that in 10-year follow-up, CR compared with IR was associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality, especially due to a higher increase in cardiovascular-specific mortality in individuals submitted to PCI.

Applying the National Institute for Clinical Excellence criteria to patients treated with the Genous (TM) Bio-engineered R stent (TM): a sub-study of the e-HEALING (Healthy Endothelial Accelerated Lining Inhibits Neointimal Growth) worldwide registry

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend the use of bare-metal stents (BMS) in non-complex lesions with a low risk of restenosis (diameter a parts per thousand yen3 mm and lesion length a parts per thousand currency sign15 mm) and the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in more complex lesions with a high risk of restenosis (diameter < 3.0 mm or lesion length > 15 mm). However, the guidelines were created based on studies evaluating BMS and DES only. We performed an analysis of patients undergoing non-urgent percutaneous coronary intervention with the novel endothelial cell capturing stent (ECS). The ECS is coated with CD34(+) antibodies that attract circulating endothelial progenitor cells to the stent surface, thereby accelerating the endothelialization of the stented area. We analyzed all patients enrolled in the worldwide e-HEALING registry that met the NICE criteria for either low-risk or high-risk lesions and were treated with a parts per thousand yen1 ECS. The main study outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) at 12-month follow-up, defined as the composite of cardiac death or MI and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A total of 4,241 patients were assessed in the current analysis. At 12-month follow-up, TVF occurred in 7.0% of the patients with low-risk lesions and in 8.8% of the patients with high-risk lesions (p = 0.045). When evaluating the diabetic patients versus the non-diabetic patients per risk group, no significant differences were found in TVF, MI or TVR in either risk group. The ECS shows good clinical outcomes in lesions carrying either a high or a low risk of restenosis according to the NICE guidelines with comparable rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. The TVF rate with ECS was slightly higher in patients with high-risk lesions, driven by higher clinically driven TLR. The risk of restenosis with ECS in patients carrying high-risk lesions needs to be carefully considered relative to other risks associated with DES. Furthermore, the presence of diabetes mellitus did not influence the incidence of TVF in either risk group.

Computed tomographic coronary angiography in patients with surgically treated type A aortic dissection: preliminary results

Acute type A aortic dissection is a serious emergency with a mortality rate of up to 40% within the first 24 h when left untreated. Surgical therapy needs to be initiated promptly. Due to this urgent situation, preoperative evaluation of the coronary arteries is not routinely performed in these patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography angiography (CTA) for postoperative coronary artery assessment in these patients. Ten consecutive patients with two or more cardiovascular risk factors were prospectively enrolled. Patients had type A aortic dissection treated surgically with a supracoronary graft of the ascending aorta. Performance of CTA to exclude significant stenosis (>50% lumen narrowing) and/or coronary artery dissection was compared with quantitative coronary angiography. A total of 147 segments were evaluated. Three segments (2%) were excluded from analysis. CTA correctly assessed one of three significant stenoses in three patients and correctly excluded coronary artery disease (CAD) in six of ten patients. One patient was rated false positive. Overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CT for identifying coronary artery disease by segment was 98%, 33%, 99%, 50%, and 99%, respectively (P<0.05). By patient, it was 70%, 33%, 86%, 50%, and 75%, respectively. No coronary artery dissection was found. Noninvasive CTA may be a viable alternative to conventional angiography for postoperative coronary artery evaluation in patients with surgically treated type A aortic dissection and cardiovascular risk factors. An NPV of 99% should allow for reliable exclusion of CAD. Further studies with higher patient numbers are warranted.

Impact of stent overlap on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation

Objectives We compared the angiographic and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with and without overlap of drug-eluting stents (DES). Background DES overlap has been associated with delayed healing and increased inflammation in experimental studies, but its impact on clinical outcome is not well established. Methods We analyzed the angiographic and clinical outcomes of 1,012 patients treated with DES in the SIRTAX (Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization) trial according to the presence or absence of stent overlap and the number of stents per vessel: 134 (13.2%) patients with multiple DES in a vessel with overlap, 199 (19.7%) patients with multiple DES in a vessel without overlap, and 679 (67.1%) patients with 1 DES per vessel. Results Angiographic follow-up at 8 months showed an increased late loss in DES overlap patients (0.33 ± 0.61 mm) compared with the other groups (0.18 ± 0.43 mm and 0.15 ± 0.38 mm, p < 0.01). The smallest minimal lumen diameter was located at the zone of stent overlap in 17 (68%) of 25 patients with stent overlap who underwent target lesion revascularization. Major adverse cardiac events were more common in patients with DES overlap (34 events, 25.4%) than in the other groups (42 events, 21.1% and 95 events, 14.0%) at 3 years (p < 0.01). Both the risk of target lesion revascularization (20.2% vs. 16.1% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.01) and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (17.2% vs. 14.1% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.01) were increased in patients with DES overlap compared with the other groups. Conclusions DES overlap occurs in >10% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in routine clinical practice and is associated with impaired angiographic and long-term clinical outcome, including death or myocardial infarction. (Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization; NCT00297661).

The impact of body mass index on the one year outcomes of patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention with Biolimus- and Sirolimus-eluting stents (from the LEADERS Trial)

The aim of this analysis was to assess the effect of body mass index (BMI) on 1-year outcomes in patients enrolled in a contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer to a biolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer. A total of 1,707 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with either biolimus-eluting stents (n = 857) or sirolimus-eluting stents (n = 850). Patients were assigned to 1 of 3 groups according to BMI: normal (<25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25 to 30 kg/m(2)), or obese (>30 kg/m(2)). At 1 year, the incidence of the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization was assessed. In addition, rates of clinically justified target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis were assessed. Cox proportional-hazards analysis, adjusted for clinical differences, was used to develop models for 1-year mortality. Forty-five percent of the patients (n = 770) were overweight, 26% (n = 434) were obese, and 29% (n = 497) had normal BMIs. At 1-year follow-up, the cumulative rate of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the obese group (8.7% in normal-weight, 11.3% in overweight, and 14.5% in obese patients, p = 0.01). BMI (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.14, p = 0.04) was an independent predictor of stent thrombosis. Stent type had no impact on the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically justified target vessel revascularization at 1 year in the 3 BMI groups (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.83, p = 0.73). In conclusion, BMI was an independent predictor of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year clinical follow-up. The higher incidence of stent thrombosis in the obese group may suggest the need for a weight-adjusted dose of clopidogrel.

Impact of arterial injury on neointimal hyperplasia after implantation of drug-eluting stents in coronary arteries: an intravascular ultrasound study

Aims: We investigated the impact of arterial injury on neointimal hyperplasia following implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods and results: A total of 196 patients with 223 segments (sirolimus-eluting stents [SES]: 104, paclitaxel-eluting stents [PES]: 119) underwent intravascular ultrasound eight months after DES implantation. Arterial injury was defined as the balloon-to-artery ratio (BAR). Segments were categorised into two groups: high BAR defined as BAR>1.1 (120 segments), and low BAR defined as BAR ≤1.1 (103 segments). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar for both groups. Although reference vessel diameter was smaller, stent diameter, maximal balloon pressure and balloon diameter were higher in the high BAR compared with the low BAR group. Lumen (7.10±1.91 vs. 6.25±1.69, p=0.001), stent (7.31±1.95 vs. 6.41±1.80, p=0.001), and external elastic membrane (17.1±4.9 vs. 14.8±4.0, p<0.0001) areas (mm2) were higher, but neointimal hyperplasia (0.21±0.36 vs. 0.16±0.48, p=0.42) area (mm2) was similar in the high BAR compared with the low BAR group. Arterial injury as assessed by BAR was not associated with the amount of neointimal hyperplasia (R2=0.003, p=0.40). Conclusions: Arterial injury does not correlate with the amount of neointimal hyperplasia following DES implantation. Conventionally aggressive DES implantation techniques do not adversely affect long-term outcome with respect to restenosis. - See more at: http://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/30th_issue/79/#sthash.1do4X31G.dpuf

Pooled analysis of trials comparing titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary stenting

We performed a pooled analysis of three trials comparing titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents (BAS) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in 1,774 patients. All patients were followed for 12 months. The primary outcomes of interest were recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), death and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis (ST) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including MI, death and TLR. There were 922 patients in the BAS group and 852 in the PES group. BAS significantly reduced the risk of recurrent MI (2.7% vs. 5.6%; risk ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81; p = 0.004) and MACE (8.9% vs. 12.6%; risk ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.94; p = 0.02) during the 12 months of follow up. In contrast, the differences between BAS and PES were not statistically significant with respect to TLR (risk ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.68-1.41), death (risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.61-1.51) and definite ST (risk ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.05-1.47). In conclusion, the results of this analysis suggest that BAS is effective in reducing TLR and improves clinical outcomes by reducing MI and MACE compared with PES.

A randomised determination of the effect of fluvastatin and atorvastatin on top of dual antiplatelet treatment on platelet aggregation after implantation of coronary drug-eluting stents. The EFA-Trial

Drug-drug interaction between statins metabolised by cytochrome P450 3A4 and clopidogrel have been claimed to attenuate the inhibitory effect of clopidogrel. However, published data regarding this drug-drug interaction are controversial. We aimed to determine the effect of fluvastatin and atorvastatin on the inhibitory effect of dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and clopidogrel. One hundred one patients with symptomatic stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and drug-eluting stent implantation were enrolled in this prospective randomised study. After an interval of two weeks under dual antiplatelet therapy with ASA and clopidogrel, without any lipid-lowering drug, 87 patients were randomised to receive a treatment with either fluvastatin 80 mg daily or atorvastatin 40 mg daily in addition to the dual antiplatelet therapy for one month. Platelet aggregation was assessed using light transmission aggregometry and whole blood impedance platelet aggregometry prior to randomisation and after one month of receiving assigned statin and dual antiplatelet treatment. Platelet function assessment after one month of statin and dual antiplatelet therapy did not show a significant change in platelet aggregation from 1st to 2nd assessment for either statin group. There was also no difference between atorvastatin and fluvastatin treatment arms. In conclusion, neither atorvastatin 40 mg daily nor fluvastatin 80 mg daily administered in combination with standard dual antiplatelet therapy following coronary drug-eluting stent implantation significantly interfere with the antiaggregatory effect of ASA and clopidogrel.

A comparison of the conformability of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds to metal platform coronary stents

The aim of this study was to assess the differences in terms of curvature and angulation of the treated vessel after the deployment of either a metallic stent or a polymeric scaffold device.

Value of the SYNTAX score for risk assessment in the all-comers population of the randomized multicenter LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the predictive value of the SYNTAX score (SXscore) for major adverse cardiac events in the all-comers population of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial. BACKGROUND: The SXscore has been shown to be an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients with multivessel disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: The SXscore was prospectively collected in 1,397 of the 1,707 patients enrolled in the LEADERS trial (patients after surgical revascularization were excluded). Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up, according to 1 of 3 SXscore tertiles. RESULTS: The 1,397 patients were divided into tertiles based on the SXscore in the following fashion: SXscore8 and 16 (SXhigh) (n=461). At 1-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower number of patients with major cardiac event-free survival in the highest tertile of SXscore (SXlow=92.2%, SXmid=91.1%, and SXhigh=84.6%; p<0.001). Death occurred in 1.5% of SXlow patients, 2.1% of SXmid patients, and 5.6% of SXhigh patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29 to 3.01; p=0.002). The myocardial infarction rate tended to be higher in the SXhigh group. Target vessel revascularization was 11.3% in the SXhigh group compared with 6.3% and 7.8% in the SXlow and SXmid groups, respectively (HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.75; p=0.006). Composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target vessel revascularization was 7.8%, 8.9%, and 15.4% in the SXlow, SXmid, and SXhigh groups, respectively (HR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.81; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SXscore, when applied to an all-comers patient population treated with drug-eluting stents, may allow prospective risk stratification of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. (LEADERS Trial Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating; NCT00389220).

Five-Year Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of a Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Results of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization LATE Trial

Background—Long-term comparative data of first-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. We investigated clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 5 years as part of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) LATE study. Methods and Results—A total of 1012 patients were randomly assigned to SES or PES. Repeat angiography was completed in 444 of 1012 patients (43.8%) at 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 19.7% of SES- and 21.4% of PES-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.17; P=0.39) at 5 years. There were no differences between SES and PES in terms of cardiac death (5.8% versus 5.7%; P=0.35), myocardial infarction (6.6% versus 6.9%; P=0.51), and target lesion revascularization (13.1% versus 15.1%; P=0.29). Between 1 and 5 years, the annual rate of target lesion revascularization was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.4% to 2.6%) for SES and 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 2.0%) for PES. Among patients undergoing paired angiography at 8 months and 5 years, delayed lumen loss amounted to 0.37±0.73 mm for SES and 0.29±0.59 mm for PES (P=0.32). The overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was 4.6% for SES and 4.1% for PES (P=0.74), and very late definite stent thrombosis occurred at an annual rate of 0.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.40% to 0.90%). Conclusions—Long-term follow-up of first-generation drug-eluting stents shows no significant differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes between SES and PES. The continuous increase in late lumen loss in conjunction with the ongoing risk of very late stent thrombosis suggests that vascular healing remains incomplete up to 5 years after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents.

Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization

Objectives This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. Methods Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score–matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. Results The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). Conclusions The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST.

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol-mandated angiographic follow-up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug-eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients.

Should intentional endovascular stent-graft coverage of the left subclavian artery be preceded by prophylactic revascularisation?

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a promising therapeutic alternative to conventional open aortic replacement but it requires suitable proximal and distal landing zones for stent-graft anchoring. Many aortic pathologies affect in the immediate proximity of the left subclavian artery (LSA) limiting the proximal landing zone site without proximal vessel coverage. In patients in whom the distance between the LSA and aortic lesion is too short, extension of the landing zone can be obtained by covering the LSA's origin with the endovascular stent graft (ESG). This manoeuvre has the potential for immediate and delayed neurological and vascular symptoms. Some authors, therefore, propose prophylactic revascularisation of the LSA by transposition or bypass, while others suggest prophylactic revascularisation only under certain conditions, and still others see no requirement for prophylactic revascularisation in anticipation of LSA ostium coverage. In this review about LSA revascularisation in TEVAR patients with coverage of the LSA, we searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE historically until the end date of May 2010 with the search terms left subclavian artery, covering, endovascular, revascularisation and thoracic aorta. We have gathered the most complete scientific evidence available used to support the various concepts to deal with this issue. After a review of the current available literature, 23 relevant articles were found, where we have identified and analysed three basic treatment concepts for LSA revascularisation in TEVAR patients (prophylactic, conditional prophylactic and no prophylactic LSA revascularisation). The available evidence supports prophylactic revascularisation of the LSA before ESG LSA coverage when preoperative imaging reveals abnormal supra-aortic vascular anatomy or pathology. We further conclude that elective patients undergoing planned coverage of the LSA during TEVAR should receive prophylactic LSA transposition or LSA-to-left-common-carotid-artery (LCCA) bypass surgery to prevent severe neurological complications, such as paraplegia or brain stem infarction.