ArticleCVIR endovascular2026
Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in the treatment of drug-refractory intracranial atherosclerotic disease: a retrospective single-center comparison.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDue to several issues with endovascular treatment of intracranial symptomatic atherosclerotic disease (ICAD), international guidelines recommend drug therapy as first-line treatment since almost 10 years. Regardless of this, endovascular ICAD treatment has meanwhile progressed, significantly reducing periprocedural complication rates. However, early in-stent restenosis (ISRS) remains, so far, unchallenged. Cardiologists had been at a similar point in the evolution of cardiac artery stenting and challenged ISRS through drug-eluting stents (DES). Therefore, 90d results and restenosis rates of patients treated with DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS) were compared to determine whether DES could also solve the neurovascular problem.
methodsAll endovascular ICAD treatments in 2014-2022 at a single institution through DES were retrospectively compared to all BMS-treatments in regards to periprocedural complications and ISR rates. Perioperative procedures and drug regimen were comparable for all patients, follow-up was carried out 90 days after treatment through digital subtraction angiography, clinical status was recorded by a board certified neurologist.
resultsFifty-two patients were treated for ICAD with DES, 26 patients received ICAD-treatment with BMS. Patients' demographics and comorbidities were comparable. The periprocedural and ISR-rates were significantly lower in DES compared to BMS. DISCUSSION: The lower periprocedural complication rate may be due to less complexity of the DES system, while lower ISR in the DES group may be connected to reduced endothelium irritation and proliferation through the eluted sirolimus.
conclusionIn the population studied, DES achieved equal to better results in comparison to BMS. This study supports a re-evaluation of the role of endovascular ICAD-treatment as first line therapy in the light of the most recent developments on knowledge and techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.