SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Drug-eluting stent versus bare metal stent for symptomatic intracranial stenosis: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis study.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical efficacy of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of vertebral artery stenosis and analysis of factors contributing to stent restenosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntracranial atherosclerotic artery stenosis (ICAS) is a major cause of ischemic stroke globally and is associated with poor recanalization rates, high recurrence, and adverse functional outcomes. The use of stents has been explored as a treatment option to improve outcomes, despite concerns over procedure-related complications and in-stent restenosis (ISR). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in treating patients with symptomatic ICAS (sICAS).
methodA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, with a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science up to March 1, 2024. Studies that reported outcomes such as technical and clinical success rates, periprocedural complications, ISR, and stroke rates were included. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata v.17.
resultsA total of 44 studies involving 13,658 patients were included. DES demonstrated lower pooled rates of major stroke (3% [95% CI 2-4%]) and ISR (8% [95% CI 3-12%]) compared to BMS (5% [95% CI 3-6%] for major stroke and 19% [95% CI 14-24%] for ISR), though the difference in major stroke rate was not statistically significant. The clinical success rate was similar between DES (89% [95% CI 78-99%]) and BMS (86% [95% CI 76-97%]). Technical success rates were high and comparable for both stent types. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression identified significant factors influencing heterogeneity, including stent or wire length and diameter.
conclusionDES showed a significant advantage over BMS in reducing ISR and major stroke rates while maintaining comparable safety and technical success. These findings support the preferential use of DES in clinical practice for managing sICAS, emphasizing their role in enhancing patient outcomes through reduced restenosis and recurrent ischemic events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40327067What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.