Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Stent Angioplasty in Patients with Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Luiz Guilherme Silva Almeida, Gabriel Semione, Lucca Tamara Alves Carretta, Lucas Copolillo Faria, Yasmin Picanço Silva, Ocílio Ribeiro Gonçalves, Rafael Torres Fonseca Dos Santos, Paweł Łajczak, Marcelo Costa, Marcio Yuri Ferreira, Christian Ferreira, David Gordon, Yafell Serulle
{"title":"Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Stent Angioplasty in Patients with Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Luiz Guilherme Silva Almeida, Gabriel Semione, Lucca Tamara Alves Carretta, Lucas Copolillo Faria, Yasmin Picanço Silva, Ocílio Ribeiro Gonçalves, Rafael Torres Fonseca Dos Santos, Paweł Łajczak, Marcelo Costa, Marcio Yuri Ferreira, Christian Ferreira, David Gordon, Yafell Serulle","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03630-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is a major cause of ischemic stroke, particularly in high-risk populations. Endovascular treatment options, including drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and stent angioplasty (SA), have been explored as alternatives for patients with severe stenosis or refractory symptoms. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions remain a topic of debate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science up to December 2024. Studies comparing DCB to SA were included. Outcomes analyzed were symptomatic restenosis, overall restenosis rates, and recurrent ischemic events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three studies with 213 patients met the inclusion criteria. DCB was associated with significantly lower rates of overall restenosis (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.10-0.50, I2 = 0%,p < 0.001) and recurrent ischemic events (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07-0.63, I2 = 0%,p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant disparity between both methods concerning symptomatic restenosis (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.09-1.24, I2 = 0%, p = 0.101).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that DCB angioplasty may be safer and more effective than SA for ICAD, with lower rates of restenosis and ischemic complications. However, the evidence is primarily based on observational studies, highlighting the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols to establish further the comparative efficacy and long-term outcomes between DCB and SA in patients with ICAD.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"480"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03630-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is a major cause of ischemic stroke, particularly in high-risk populations. Endovascular treatment options, including drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and stent angioplasty (SA), have been explored as alternatives for patients with severe stenosis or refractory symptoms. However, the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions remain a topic of debate.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science up to December 2024. Studies comparing DCB to SA were included. Outcomes analyzed were symptomatic restenosis, overall restenosis rates, and recurrent ischemic events.

Results: Three studies with 213 patients met the inclusion criteria. DCB was associated with significantly lower rates of overall restenosis (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.10-0.50, I2 = 0%,p < 0.001) and recurrent ischemic events (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07-0.63, I2 = 0%,p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant disparity between both methods concerning symptomatic restenosis (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.09-1.24, I2 = 0%, p = 0.101).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that DCB angioplasty may be safer and more effective than SA for ICAD, with lower rates of restenosis and ischemic complications. However, the evidence is primarily based on observational studies, highlighting the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols to establish further the comparative efficacy and long-term outcomes between DCB and SA in patients with ICAD.

颅内动脉粥样硬化患者的药物包被球囊与支架成形术:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
颅内动脉粥样硬化疾病(ICAD)是缺血性脑卒中的主要原因,特别是在高危人群中。血管内治疗方案,包括药物包被球囊(DCB)血管成形术和支架血管成形术(SA),已被探索作为严重狭窄或难治性症状患者的替代方案。然而,这些干预措施的相对有效性和安全性仍然是一个有争议的话题。方法:系统检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane、Scopus和Web of Science,检索截止到2024年12月。包括比较DCB和SA的研究。结果分析为症状性再狭窄、总再狭窄率和复发性缺血事件。结果:3项研究213例患者符合纳入标准。DCB与总体再狭窄发生率显著降低相关(OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.10-0.50, I2 = 0%,p)。结论:该荟萃分析表明,DCB血管成形术治疗ICAD可能比SA更安全、更有效,再狭窄和缺血性并发症发生率更低。然而,证据主要基于观察性研究,强调需要采用标准化方案的多中心随机对照试验,以进一步确定DCB和SA在ICAD患者中的比较疗效和长期结局。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信