Neuroendovascular medicine is moving beyond purely mechanical treatment toward catheter-based systems that also deliver biologic therapies. In this narrative review, “biologic-enabled neurointervention” denotes three groups, distinguished throughout and grouped by route rather than regulatory class: true biologic products (recombinant proteins, monoclonal antibodies, cell therapies, extracellular vesicles and gene-transfer vectors); adjunctive small-molecule pharmacotherapy; and bioengineered device and nanocarrier platforms. We synthesize clinical, translational and preclinical evidence on periprocedural pharmacotherapy, bioactive devices, biologics for delayed cerebral ischemia, genotype-guided and anti-angiogenic therapies for arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), endovascular stem cell delivery, intra-arterial gene therapy and nanoscale delivery platforms. Superselective intra-arterial delivery may achieve higher target-site concentrations, lower systemic exposure and access to difficult-to-reach territories, although these advantages are not universal and depend on cerebral blood flow, first-pass extraction, molecular size and barrier integrity. Limitations include immunogenicity, off-target distribution, procedure-related risk, small and heterogeneous clinical datasets, and unresolved regulatory and manufacturing pathways for living and gene-based products. With the exception of adjunctive intra-arterial thrombolysis, which is supported by randomized evidence, the approaches reviewed here remain predominantly investigational, and each is assigned an explicit evidence tier. Whether biologic-enabled neurointervention becomes an integrated component of standard cerebrovascular care will depend on adequately powered multicenter trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Irshad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: