Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in symptomatic intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis: a meta-analysis.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Frontiers in Neurology Pub Date : 2024-11-05 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fneur.2024.1389254
Yidan Zhang, Wenbin Li, Lei Zhang
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in symptomatic intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Yidan Zhang, Wenbin Li, Lei Zhang","doi":"10.3389/fneur.2024.1389254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to present the first comprehensive meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in treating intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive examination was undertaken to compare the effectiveness and safety of DES and BMS in individuals experiencing symptomatic stenosis in the intracranial and vertebral arteries through an in-depth analysis of clinical research. We conducted an extensive search across multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to September 2024. The emphasis of our investigation was on various outcomes including rates of in-stent restenosis, symptomatic occurrences of in-stent restenosis, incidence of stroke, procedural success, mortality rates, complications associated with the procedure, and any adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis included 12 studies with a total of 1,243 patients (562 in the DES group and 681 in the BMS group). The findings demonstrated a significantly lower rate of in-stent restenosis in the DES group for both intracranial [odds ratio (OR): 0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13 to 0.41; <i>p</i> < 0.00001] and vertebral artery stenosis (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.72; <i>p</i> = 0.003) compared to the BMS group. Additionally, the DES group showed a significantly reduced rate of postoperative strokes in vertebral artery stenosis cases (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.90; <i>p</i> = 0.03), with no significant differences noted in the intracranial artery stenosis comparison (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.95; <i>p</i> = 0.42). The study also revealed no significant disparities in symptomatic in-stent restenosis, procedural success, mortality, adverse effects, and perioperative complications between the two groups across the conditions studied.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The comparison indicates that DES significantly reduces the risk of in-stent restenosis and postoperative strokes in patients with vertebral artery stenosis, compared to BMS. For both intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis, DES and BMS exhibit comparable safety profiles.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=439967.</p>","PeriodicalId":12575,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Neurology","volume":"15 ","pages":"1389254"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11573555/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1389254","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to present the first comprehensive meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in treating intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis.

Methods: A comprehensive examination was undertaken to compare the effectiveness and safety of DES and BMS in individuals experiencing symptomatic stenosis in the intracranial and vertebral arteries through an in-depth analysis of clinical research. We conducted an extensive search across multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to September 2024. The emphasis of our investigation was on various outcomes including rates of in-stent restenosis, symptomatic occurrences of in-stent restenosis, incidence of stroke, procedural success, mortality rates, complications associated with the procedure, and any adverse events.

Results: Our analysis included 12 studies with a total of 1,243 patients (562 in the DES group and 681 in the BMS group). The findings demonstrated a significantly lower rate of in-stent restenosis in the DES group for both intracranial [odds ratio (OR): 0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13 to 0.41; p < 0.00001] and vertebral artery stenosis (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.72; p = 0.003) compared to the BMS group. Additionally, the DES group showed a significantly reduced rate of postoperative strokes in vertebral artery stenosis cases (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.90; p = 0.03), with no significant differences noted in the intracranial artery stenosis comparison (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.95; p = 0.42). The study also revealed no significant disparities in symptomatic in-stent restenosis, procedural success, mortality, adverse effects, and perioperative complications between the two groups across the conditions studied.

Conclusion: The comparison indicates that DES significantly reduces the risk of in-stent restenosis and postoperative strokes in patients with vertebral artery stenosis, compared to BMS. For both intracranial and vertebral artery stenosis, DES and BMS exhibit comparable safety profiles.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=439967.

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
药物洗脱支架与裸金属支架对无症状颅内和椎动脉狭窄的疗效和安全性对比:一项荟萃分析。
研究目的本研究旨在首次对药物洗脱支架(DES)与裸金属支架(BMS)治疗颅内和椎动脉狭窄的有效性和安全性进行全面的荟萃分析评估:通过对临床研究的深入分析,我们对药物洗脱支架(DES)和裸金属支架(BMS)治疗颅内动脉和椎动脉无症状狭窄的有效性和安全性进行了全面的研究比较。截至 2024 年 9 月,我们在多个数据库(包括 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library)中进行了广泛检索。我们调查的重点是各种结果,包括支架内再狭窄率、支架内再狭窄的无症状发生率、中风发生率、手术成功率、死亡率、手术相关并发症以及任何不良事件:我们的分析包括12项研究,共涉及1243名患者(DES组562人,BMS组681人)。研究结果表明,与 BMS 组相比,DES 组的颅内支架内再狭窄率明显较低[几率比 (OR):0.23;95% 置信区间 (CI):0.13 至 0.41;P = 0.003]。此外,在椎动脉狭窄病例中,DES 组的术后脑卒中发生率明显降低(OR:0.38;95% CI:0.16 至 0.90;P = 0.03),而在颅内动脉狭窄比较中未发现明显差异(OR:0.63;95% CI:0.20 至 1.95;P = 0.42)。研究还显示,在所研究的各种情况下,两组在无症状支架内再狭窄、手术成功率、死亡率、不良反应和围手术期并发症方面没有明显差异:比较结果表明,与BMS相比,DES能明显降低椎动脉狭窄患者支架内再狭窄和术后中风的风险。对于颅内和椎动脉狭窄,DES和BMS的安全性相当。系统综述注册:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=439967。
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
Frontiers in Neurology
Frontiers in Neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGYNEUROSCIENCES -NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.80%
发文量
2792
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: The section Stroke aims to quickly and accurately publish important experimental, translational and clinical studies, and reviews that contribute to the knowledge of stroke, its causes, manifestations, diagnosis, and management.
期刊最新文献
Case report: Polymorphous low-grade neuroepithelial tumor of the young and supratentorial ependymoma diagnosed in an adult male. Changes in symptom pattern in Meniere's disease by duration: the need for comprehensive management. Clinical characteristics of patients with P4HTM variant-associated epilepsy and therapeutic exploration: a case report and literature review. FLAIR vascular hyperintensity is associated with functional outcome in patients with ischemic stroke receiving endovascular treatment: a meta-analysis. Headache disorders in patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndromes and hypermobility spectrum disorders.
×
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