Systematic review compares outcomes of endovascular treatment for ICAD and non-ICAD large vessel occlusion, suggesting tailored strategies.
BACKGROUND: Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is a major cause of large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke and presents unique challenges for endovascular treatment (EVT). PURPOSE: To compare angiographic and clinical outcomes after EVT in patients with ICAD-related versus non-ICAD LVO. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through July 2025. STUDY SELECTION: Studies enrolling adults with LVO undergoing EVT that directly compared ICAD and non-ICAD etiologies were included. DATA ANALYSIS: Random-effects models were used to pool odds ratios (OR). Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence (CoE) was evaluated using GRADE. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies (3 prospective and 15 retrospective) comprising 11,326 patients (1,571 ICAD; 9,755 non-ICAD) were included. Mean age across cohorts was 72.8 years, and hypertension was the most common comorbidity. ICAD was associated with lower odds of successful reperfusion (OR, 0.46; 95%CI, 0.31–0.70; p<0.001; very-low CoE) and lower risk of sICH (OR, 0.72; 95%CI, 0.54–0.96; p=0.025; low CoE). No significant differences were observed for functional independence (OR, 0.90; 95%CI, 0.67–1.22; p=0.51; very-low CoE), favorable functional outcome (OR, 0.80; 95%CI, 0.43–1.51; p=0.45; very-low CoE), or mortality (OR, 1.16; 95%CI, 0.77–1.75; p=0.48; very-low CoE). LIMITATIONS: Included studies were observational, most were retrospective, and pooled estimates were derived from unadjusted comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: In pooled unadjusted comparisons, ICAD was associated with lower reperfusion success but similar functional and mortality outcomes compared to non-ICAD LVO, alongside a lower risk of symptomatic hemorrhage. These findings highlight the distinct pathophysiology of ICAD-LVO and the need for tailored EVT strategies and randomized trials for this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Woehl et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: