Stenting for symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis with different qualifying arteries: a preplanned pooled individual patient data analysis.

IF 2.6 1区 医学 Journal of Investigative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1136/svn-2024-003532
Tianhua Li, Jichang Luo, Xuesong Bai, Eyad Almallouhi, Peng Gao, Delin Liu, Ran Xu, Wenlong Xu, Guangdong Lu, Haozhi Gong, Xiao Zhang, Taoyuan Lu, Jie Wang, Renjie Yang, Zixuan Xing, Guangjie Liu, Yufu Dai, Colin P Derdeyn, Liqun Jiao, Tao Wang
{"title":"Stenting for symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis with different qualifying arteries: a preplanned pooled individual patient data analysis.","authors":"Tianhua Li, Jichang Luo, Xuesong Bai, Eyad Almallouhi, Peng Gao, Delin Liu, Ran Xu, Wenlong Xu, Guangdong Lu, Haozhi Gong, Xiao Zhang, Taoyuan Lu, Jie Wang, Renjie Yang, Zixuan Xing, Guangjie Liu, Yufu Dai, Colin P Derdeyn, Liqun Jiao, Tao Wang","doi":"10.1136/svn-2024-003532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) relative to medical management in treating symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis (ICAS) varies based on the qualifying artery. This study aims to evaluate PTAS compared with medical therapy alone in cases of ICAS involving the internal carotid artery (ICA), middle cerebral artery (MCA), vertebral artery (VA) and basilar artery (BA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study involves a thorough pooled analysis of individual patient data from two randomised controlled trials, evaluating the efficacy of PTAS in comparison to medical management for symptomatic ICAS with different qualifying arteries. The primary outcome was stroke or death within 30 days postenrolment, or stroke in the region of the qualifying artery beyond 30 days through 1 year. A methodology based on intention-to-treat was employed, and HR accompanied by 95% CIs were used to convey risk estimates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The data of 809 individuals were collected from Stenting vs Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial and China Angioplasty and Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Severe Stenosis trial. Four hundred were designated for PTAS, while 409 were assigned to medical therapy alone. For the primary outcome, patients with symptomatic BA stenosis had a significantly higher risk of receiving PTAS compared with medical therapy (17.17% vs 7.77%; 9.40; HR, 2.38 (1.03 to 5.52); p=0.04). However, PTAS had no significant difference in patients with symptomatic ICA (26.67% vs 16.67%; HR, 1.68 (0.78 to 3.62); p=0.19), MCA (8.28% vs 9.79%; HR, 0.85 (0.42 to 1.74); p=0.66) and VA stenosis (9.52% vs 10.71%; HR, 0.91 (0.32 to 2.62); p=0.86) compared with medical therapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PTAS significantly increases the risk of both short-term and long-term stroke in patients with symptomatic BA stenosis. Without significant technological advancements to mitigate these risks, PTAS offers limited benefits. For symptomatic ICA, MCA and VA stenosis, PTAS provided no significant advantage.</p>","PeriodicalId":48733,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigative Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2024-003532","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) relative to medical management in treating symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis (ICAS) varies based on the qualifying artery. This study aims to evaluate PTAS compared with medical therapy alone in cases of ICAS involving the internal carotid artery (ICA), middle cerebral artery (MCA), vertebral artery (VA) and basilar artery (BA).

Methods: This study involves a thorough pooled analysis of individual patient data from two randomised controlled trials, evaluating the efficacy of PTAS in comparison to medical management for symptomatic ICAS with different qualifying arteries. The primary outcome was stroke or death within 30 days postenrolment, or stroke in the region of the qualifying artery beyond 30 days through 1 year. A methodology based on intention-to-treat was employed, and HR accompanied by 95% CIs were used to convey risk estimates.

Results: The data of 809 individuals were collected from Stenting vs Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial and China Angioplasty and Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Severe Stenosis trial. Four hundred were designated for PTAS, while 409 were assigned to medical therapy alone. For the primary outcome, patients with symptomatic BA stenosis had a significantly higher risk of receiving PTAS compared with medical therapy (17.17% vs 7.77%; 9.40; HR, 2.38 (1.03 to 5.52); p=0.04). However, PTAS had no significant difference in patients with symptomatic ICA (26.67% vs 16.67%; HR, 1.68 (0.78 to 3.62); p=0.19), MCA (8.28% vs 9.79%; HR, 0.85 (0.42 to 1.74); p=0.66) and VA stenosis (9.52% vs 10.71%; HR, 0.91 (0.32 to 2.62); p=0.86) compared with medical therapy.

Conclusions: PTAS significantly increases the risk of both short-term and long-term stroke in patients with symptomatic BA stenosis. Without significant technological advancements to mitigate these risks, PTAS offers limited benefits. For symptomatic ICA, MCA and VA stenosis, PTAS provided no significant advantage.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
针对不同合格动脉的无症状颅内动脉狭窄进行支架植入术:一项预先计划的个体患者数据汇集分析。
背景:在治疗无症状颅内动脉狭窄(ICAS)时,经皮腔内血管成形术和支架植入术(PTAS)相对于药物治疗的疗效因所涉及的动脉而异。本研究旨在评估在涉及颈内动脉(ICA)、大脑中动脉(MCA)、椎动脉(VA)和基底动脉(BA)的 ICAS 病例中,PTAS 与单纯药物治疗的比较:本研究对两项随机对照试验中的单个患者数据进行了全面的汇总分析,评估了 PTAS 与药物治疗对不同合格动脉的无症状 ICAS 的疗效比较。研究的主要结果是入组后 30 天内中风或死亡,或 30 天后至 1 年内合格动脉区域中风。研究采用了基于意向治疗的方法,用HR和95% CI来表示风险估计值:809人的数据来自颅内狭窄预防复发中风的支架置入与积极药物治疗试验和中国无症状颅内重度狭窄血管成形术和支架置入试验。400名患者被指定接受PTAS治疗,409名患者被指定接受单纯药物治疗。就主要结果而言,与药物治疗相比,有症状的 BA 狭窄患者接受 PTAS 的风险明显更高(17.17% vs 7.77%; 9.40; HR, 2.38 (1.03 to 5.52); p=0.04)。然而,与药物治疗相比,PTAS在有症状的ICA(26.67% vs 16.67%;HR,1.68(0.78至3.62);P=0.19)、MCA(8.28% vs 9.79%;HR,0.85(0.42至1.74);P=0.66)和VA狭窄(9.52% vs 10.71%;HR,0.91(0.32至2.62);P=0.86)患者中没有明显差异:结论:PTAS 会明显增加无症状 BA 狭窄患者的短期和长期卒中风险。如果没有重大的技术进步来降低这些风险,PTAS 的益处有限。对于有症状的 ICA、MCA 和 VA 狭窄,PTAS 没有明显优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Investigative Medicine
Journal of Investigative Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNALMEDICINE, RESE-MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
自引率
0.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Journal of Investigative Medicine (JIM) is the official publication of the American Federation for Medical Research. The journal is peer-reviewed and publishes high-quality original articles and reviews in the areas of basic, clinical, and translational medical research. JIM publishes on all topics and specialty areas that are critical to the conduct of the entire spectrum of biomedical research: from the translation of clinical observations at the bedside, to basic and animal research to clinical research and the implementation of innovative medical care.
期刊最新文献
Association between Life's Essential 8 and Cerebral Small Vessel Disease. Treatment practice of vasospasm during endovascular thrombectomy: an international survey. Low-intensity focused ultrasound stimulation promotes stroke recovery via astrocytic HMGB1 and CAMK2N1 in mice. Real-world analysis of two ischaemic stroke and TIA systolic blood pressure goals on 12-month mortality and recurrent vascular events. Safety and efficacy of glibenclamide on cerebral oedema following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1