Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting vs aggressive medical management on stroke or intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 13; no. 1; p. 7567
• Main Authors: Lai, Zhiyu, Peng, Mingqiang, He, Haoming, Li, Yingbin, Bai, Xiaoxin, Cai, Jun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 09.05.2023; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 692/308; 692/617; 692/699; 692/700; Angioplasty; Arteriosclerosis; Atherosclerosis; Constriction, Pathologic - therapy; Death; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Intracranial Arteriosclerosis - therapy; Ischemia; Ischemic Stroke - therapy; Meta-analysis; Mortality; multidisciplinary; Patients; Risk assessment; Risk groups; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Stenosis; Stroke; Stroke - therapy
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-34663-1

There are currently two main treatment strategies mainly for high-risk patients: percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) and aggressive medical management (AMM). However, the choice between PTAS or AMM remains controversial for patients with stroke or intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS). The investigators searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane library databases. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing PTAS and AMM for patients with stroke or ICAS were selected. RevMan 5.3 was used to analyze the results and assess risk of bias. The primary endpoints are stroke and death within 30 days after enrollment, or ischemic stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery beyond 30 days, and entire follow-up endpoints. The secondary outcomes were the disabling or fatal stroke, and incidence of death within 3 years. Four studies, 989 patients were included in this article. The AMM group was superior in the entire follow-up endpoint (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40, 0.79). The AMM also better in primary endpoint within 30 days (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.17, 0.61). There was no significant difference beyond 30 days (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.63, 1.86). The remaining outcomes, such as stroke and death, were not significantly different (P > 0.05). This meta-analysis shows AMM is significantly more effective than PTAS in subjects with ICAS due to the high rate of periprocedural stroke (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.17, 0.61) and stroke during the entire follow-up (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40, 0.79) associated with PTAS. Furthermore, PTAS offers no additional benefits over AMM beyond 30 days (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.63, 1.86).