Background: The 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.
Methods: Randomized 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.
Results: Four 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.
Conclusions: There were no clear-cut benefits or harms for EVT versus MT alone in patients with symptomatic VA stenosis.
Keywords: Endovascular treatment; Meta-analysis; Systematic review; Vertebral artery stenosis.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.