Balloon-mounting stent versus balloon angioplasty for intracranial arterial stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Intracranial artery atherosclerotic stenosis (ICAS) is a major cause of stroke, especially in Asian countries. Current treatment options, including balloon-mounted stent (BMS) and balloon angioplasty (BA), lack sufficient evidence to determine a preferred approach. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of BMS and BA in treating ICAS. Methods Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus up to December 1, 2023. Eligible studies compared BMS with BA in patients diagnosed with ICAS. Primary outcomes included the success rate and occurrence of stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic). Secondary outcomes were perforator occlusion, in-stent thrombosis, death, and restenosis. Statistical analysis was conducted using R software version 4.3.1, employing a random-effects model. Results Five high-quality studies involving 707 patients (515 males, 192 females) were included. BMS had a significantly higher success rate compared to BA (Risk Ratio [RR]: 1.13; CI: 1.03 to 1.24, p<0.01; I2=14%). The overall risk for stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic) was significantly higher in BMS (RR: 2.97; CI: 1.32 to 6.67, p<0.01; I2=0%). However, no significant difference was found between BMS and BA regarding ischemic stroke (RR: 2.33; CI: 0.80 to 6.74, p=0.12; I2=0%). Additionally, no significant differences were observed in terms of perforator occlusion, in-stent thrombosis, dissection, minor and major strokes, and mortality rates. BMS was associated with a lower risk of restenosis (RR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.83, p=0.02; I2=0%). Conclusion Our results indicate that BMS might be associated with higher success and lower restenosis rates than BA in the treatment of ICAS but with an increased overall risk of stroke. No significant differences were observed in ischemic stroke, perforator occlusion, in-stent thrombosis, dissection, minor and major strokes, and mortality rates. The choice of treatment should consider these findings, alongside the technical challenges and desired angiographic outcomes. Future randomized controlled trials are necessary to further elucidate these results.