Wang Tao, Yang Kun, Zhang Xiao, Luo Jichang, Xu Ran, Wang Xue, Yang Yutong, Bai Xuesong, Ma Yan, Yan Yuxiang, Jiao Liqun
Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 45 Changchun Ave, Xicheng District, Beijing, China.
China International Neuroscience Institute (China-INI), Beijing, 100053, China.
Transl Stroke Res. 2022 Oct;13(5):676-685. doi: 10.1007/s12975-022-00996-8. Epub 2022 Feb 12.
Intracranial artery atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) is one of the most common causes of stroke. Endovascular therapy including balloon angioplasty alone (BA), balloon-mounted stent (BMS), or self-expanding stent (SES) was an important alternative to treat symptomatic ICAS refractory to medical treatment, while none of the three subtypes has been established to be the primary option. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine both the safety and efficacy and establish a hierarchy of different endovascular therapies on symptomatic ICAS. Major databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies comparing outcomes of three different endovascular approaches and other comparable non-endovascular therapies for symptomatic ICAS patients published from 1 January 2000 to 1 November 2021. Primary outcomes included short-term mortality or stroke rate (peri-procedural, or mean follow-up ≤ 3 months), and long-term mortality or stroke rate (mean follow-up ≥ 6 months). Pairwise and network meta-analyses based on the above systematic review were conducted. A total of 19 eligible studies involving 3386 patients treated with 4 different approaches (BA, SES, BMS, and medical treatment) were analyzed. For primary outcome, BA had the highest ranking (SUCRA value 78), followed by BMS (SUCRA value 21.5) and SES (SUCRA value 13.1). The short-term mortality or stroke rate was significantly lower in the BA group compared to SES (OR = 2.50; 95% CI 1.12 to 5.57; p = 0.026) or BMS (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.96; p = 0.038). Other primary and secondary outcomes were no different among all three types of endovascular therapy. Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality and the consistency was acceptable across all network meta-analyses. BA offers the highest level of safety outcomes in terms of short-term mortality or stroke in treating symptomatic patients with intracranial artery stenosis, compared to SES and BMS, which needs to be confirmed in future studies. Trial registration in PROSPERO database: CRD42018084055.
颅内动脉粥样硬化性狭窄(ICAS)是中风最常见的病因之一。血管内治疗,包括单纯球囊血管成形术(BA)、球囊扩张支架(BMS)或自膨式支架(SES),是治疗药物难治性症状性ICAS的重要替代方法,而这三种亚型均未被确立为主要选择。我们进行了一项系统评价和网状Meta分析,以确定不同血管内治疗方法治疗症状性ICAS的安全性和有效性,并建立不同血管内治疗方法的等级排序。检索了包括MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库在内的主要数据库,以查找比较2000年1月1日至2021年11月1日发表的三种不同血管内治疗方法以及其他可比的非血管内治疗方法治疗症状性ICAS患者疗效的研究。主要结局包括短期死亡率或卒中发生率(围手术期,或平均随访时间≤3个月),以及长期死亡率或卒中发生率(平均随访时间≥6个月)。基于上述系统评价进行了成对Meta分析和网状Meta分析。共分析了19项符合条件的研究,涉及3386例接受4种不同治疗方法(BA、SES、BMS和药物治疗)的患者。对于主要结局,BA的排序最高(累积排序曲线下面积值为78),其次是BMS(累积排序曲线下面积值为21.5)和SES(累积排序曲线下面积值为13.1)。与SES组(比值比=2.50;95%置信区间1.12至5.57;p=0.026)或BMS组(比值比=0.43;95%置信区间0.19至0.96;p=0.038)相比,BA组的短期死亡率或卒中发生率显著更低。在所有三种血管内治疗方法中,其他主要和次要结局并无差异。总体而言,这些研究的方法学质量良好,所有网状Meta分析的一致性均可接受。与SES和BMS相比,在治疗症状性颅内动脉狭窄患者时,BA在短期死亡率或卒中方面具有最高水平的安全性结局,这需要在未来的研究中得到证实。在PROSPERO数据库中的试验注册号:CRD42018084055。