Meta-analysis reveals drug-eluting stents reduce ischemic stroke risk in patients with intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis, indicating a preferable option over bare metal stents.
Background: Intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) is a major global cause of stroke. Patient with high risk of recurring strokes despite standard medication therapy usually needs aggressive medical treatment such as self-expanding and balloon-expandable stents. Drug-eluting stents (DESs), with anti-vascular endothelial cell proliferation drugs, aim to inhibit smooth muscle cells proliferation and migration, providing a promising alternative to standard bare metal stents (BMS). This study compared the advantages and safety of DES to BMS in symptomatic ICAS patients. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Science Direct in May 2024, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized trials comparing DES and BMS for symptomatic intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis were included in the study. Meta-analysis was carried out by RevMan software to analyze and odds ratio (OR) for primary and secondary outcomes. Results: Three randomized controlled trials ( n = 491) were included in the study. DES significantly reduced instent restenosis (ISR) compared to BMS (OR 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16–0.45, P < 0.00001) and lowered the risk of ischemic stroke in the target vessel (OR 0.20, 95% CI: 0.06–0.65, P = 0.008). No significant difference was observed in all-cause mortality (OR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.21–3.02, P = 0.74) or technical success rates. Symptomatic ISR within 1 year was markedly lower with DES (OR 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01–0.73, P = 0.02). Conclusion: Intravascular DES is more effective than BMS in lowering risk of ISR and incidence of ischemic stroke in symptomatic ICAS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soetomo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: