Skip to main content
NeuroWiki
Carotid

CASSISS Trial: ICAS Stenting vs Medical (China)

In patients with symptomatic 70–99% intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis, does adding percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting to aggressive medical management reduce 1-year stroke or death compared with aggressive medical management alone? (Enrolled at least 3 weeks after the qualifying event, at experienced Chinese centers.)

Gao et al. (JAMA 2022;328(6):534–542) · doi:10.1001/jama.2022.12000 · 358 patients

Population

Included

  • TIA or nondisabling nonperforator ischemic stroke
  • 70–99% angiographically verified stenosis of a major intracranial artery
  • At least 3 weeks from the qualifying event
  • Symptomatic ICAS in the target territory

Excluded

  • Perforator (penetrating-artery) territory qualifying stroke
  • Qualifying event within 3 weeks of enrollment
  • Nonatherosclerotic stenosis (dissection, vasculitis, moyamoya)
  • Additional criteria per the published study protocol

Source: Gao P et al., JAMA 2022;328(6):534–542· Retrieved 2026-07-22

Primary Outcome

NO BENEFIT: Adding stenting to aggressive medical management did not reduce the 1-year composite of stroke or death (8.0% vs 7.2%; HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.52–2.35; P=0.82). Periprocedural 30-day stroke/death fell to 5.1% (vs 14.7% in SAMMPRIS) through the at-least-3-week timing and credentialed operators, but modern medical therapy left no gap for stenting to close. No difference persisted at 2 and 3 years.

Stenting + AMM
92 / 100
Aggressive Medical Management (AMM)
92 / 100

Negligible absolute difference

Event-free at 1 Year

Hazard ratio 1.1095% CI 0.52–2.35p = 0.82

Study Arms

Agent
Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting of the symptomatic intracranial lesion
Route
Endovascular (intracranial), plus aggressive medical management
Frequency
Single procedure
Duration
One-time procedure; aggressive medical management continued as in the control arm
Co-interventions
Aggressive medical management in both arms: dual antiplatelet therapy for 90 days then single antiplatelet, high-intensity statin, systolic blood pressure target below 140 mmHg, plus risk-factor and lifestyle control

30-day stroke or death 5.1%, well below the 14.7% SAMMPRIS stenting rate. Symptomatic ICH 2.3% vs 0% in the medical arm. Enrollment was at least 3 weeks after the qualifying event. Source: Gao JAMA 2022.

Safety

Symptomatic ICH

Stenting + AMM

2.3%

Aggressive Medical Management (AMM)

0%

Stenting vs medical management. Procedural hemorrhage risk persisted despite refined selection.

3-year mortality

Stenting + AMM

4.4%

Aggressive Medical Management (AMM)

1.3%

7/160 stenting vs 2/159 medical; HR 3.75 (95% CI 0.77 to 18.13), P=.08. Underpowered, not statistically significant.

Trial Design

Type

  • Randomized open-label trial, blinded outcome assessment
  • 8 centers, China
  • 1:1 allocation (stenting + AMM vs AMM alone)

Timeline

Enrolled 2014 to 2016; 3-year follow-up

N

358

Enrollment

380 randomized, 358 analyzed (176 stenting, 182 medical) at 8 centers in China. Enrolled Mar 2014 to Nov 2016 with 3-year follow-up. Stenting performed at least 3 weeks after the qualifying event by credentialed operators. Open-label, outcome-assessor-blinded. Published JAMA 2022.

ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT01763320

Bedside Pearl

CASSISS randomized symptomatic 70–99% intracranial stenosis to stenting plus medical management vs medical management alone, at least 3 weeks out, at experienced Chinese centers. Adding stenting gave no benefit at 1 year (8.0% vs 7.2%, HR 1.10). Periprocedural risk was lower than SAMMPRIS (30-day stroke or death 5.1% vs 2.2%) but did not translate into better outcomes. Aggressive medical management stays first-line (AHA/ASA 2021 Class 1); CASSISS does not support routine stenting.

NeuroWiki is a clinical reference. It does not substitute for your clinical judgment, current guidelines, or your institution's protocol. Verify before acting. Do not enter patient names, MRNs, or dates of birth. Privacy Policy