Endovascular treatment of symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe study aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment (EVT) versus medical treatment (MT) in patients with symptomatic vertebral artery (VA) stenosis. MethodsRandomized controlled trials with active and control groups receiving EVT plus MT and MT alone in patients with vertebro-basilar transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke and VA stenosis were identified. Primary endpoints included the occurrence of any stroke, any vertebro-basilar stroke, vertebro-basilar ischemic stroke, and vertebro-basilar TIA. Secondary endpoints were myocardial infarction, vascular death, and composite vascular outcome. All endpoints were assessed at short and long-term. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) have been estimated. ResultsFour trials were included involving 370 participants, 194 and 176 for EVT and MT arms, respectively. There was no overall effect of EVT on the occurrence of any stroke [short-term: RR 3.05 (95% CI 0.33-28.49); long-term: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.40-1.40)], any vertebro-basilar stroke [short-term RR 3.05 (95% CI 0.33-28.49); long-term RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.42-1.99)], vertebro-basilar ischemic stroke [short-term: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.07-15.88); long-term RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.36-4.50)], vertebro-basilar TIA [short-term: RR 5.00 (95% CI 0.28-90.18); long-term: RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.39-1.81)]. There were no differences across the treatments in any secondary outcome. ConclusionsThere were no clear-cut benefits or harms for EVT versus MT alone in patients with symptomatic VA stenosis.