Current Status and Future Perspective of Stenting for Symptomatic Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease: A Meta-Analysis

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

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).

Medical and Endovascular Treatments for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Medical treatment and endovascular therapy are widely used for intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis, but the best treatment strategy remains uncertain. The goal of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of medical treatment, stenting, and primary balloon angioplasty (PBA). We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for trials comparing these three treatments for intracranial stenosis up to December 24, 2020. We performed a network meta-analysis with random-effects models. The primary outcome was any stroke or death during a long-term follow-up. Secondary outcomes included ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and death. This network meta-analysis included 14 trials with 1520 participants. No significant difference was found between the three groups in the primary outcome, while PBA was probably the best treatment according to the ranking plot. Medical treatment had significantly lower rate of any stroke or death (odds ratio (OR), 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17-0.56), ischemic stroke (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.81), and intracranial hemorrhage (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.71) within 30 days than stenting but did not differ from PBA. The ranking plot demonstrated that PBA was also most likely to rank the highest for ischemic stroke during the long-term follow-up and beyond 30 days, although no significant difference was identified. Medical treatment had lower risk of any stroke or death within 30 days than stenting but did not differ from PBA. All the treatments had similar effects on the prevention of long-term stroke, while PBA had the highest probability of being the most effective.

Stem cell-based therapies for ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Recently, extensive researches about stem cell-based therapies for ischemic stroke have been published; our review evaluated the efficacy and safety of stem cell-based therapies for ischemic stroke. Our review was registered on PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO), registration number CRD42019135805. Two independent observers searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) for relevant studies up to 31 May 2019. We included clinical trials which compared efficacy outcomes (measured by National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), modified Rankin scale (mRS), or Barthel index (BI)) and safety outcomes (such as death and adverse effects) between the stem cell-based therapies and control in ischemic stroke. We performed random effect meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3. Our review included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven non-randomized studies (NRSs), involving 740 participants. Stem cell-based therapies were associated with better outcomes measured by NIHSS (mean difference (MD) − 1.63, 95% confidence intervals (CI) − 2.73 to − 0.53, I² =60%) and BI (MD 14.68, 95% CI 1.12 to 28.24, I² = 68%) in RCTs, and by BI (MD 6.40, 95% CI 3.14 to 9.65, I² = 0%) in NRSs. However, the risk of bias was high and the efficacy outcomes of RCTs were high heterogeneity. There was no significant difference in mortality between the stem cell group and the control group. Fever, headache, and recurrent stroke were the most frequently reported adverse effects. Our review shows that stem cell-based therapies can improve the neurological deficits and activities of daily living in patients with ischemic stroke.