Observational studyBMC neurology2025
Dedicated drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for vertebral artery origin stenosis: a real-world single-center experience.
Observational study in BMC neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Symptomatic right vertebral artery web treated with stent implantation and 6-month angiographic follow-up.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Case report and literature review of stent detachment after vertebral artery stenting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy of drug-eluting stents in the treatment of vertebral artery stenosis and analysis of factors contributing to stent restenosis.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a major challenge following vertebral artery origin (VAO) stenting. Dedicated rapamycin-eluting vertebral artery stents were developed specifically for vertebral artery. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of dedicated drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) in this anatomically complex lesion.
methodsIn this observational prospective, single-center cohort study, consecutive patients with symptomatic severe vertebral artery origin stenosis (VAOS) undergoing either dedicated DES or BMS implantation between January 2021 and December 2023 were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was the 1-year ISR rate (> 50% luminal stenosis within or adjacent to the stent). The primary safety endpoint was 30-day stroke/death. Secondary endpoints included stroke occurring between 31 days and 1 year, symptomatic ISR within 1 year, all-cause mortality from 31 days to 1 year, stent fracture, and perioperative complications.
resultsA total of 217 patients were enrolled, including 150 dedicated DESs and 67 BMSs. Compared with the BMS group, the dedicated DES group showed Significantly lower 1-year ISR rates (14 [9.3%] vs. 25 [37.3%]; HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 - 0.45; p < 0.001), indicating a 75.1% relative risk reduction. No significant differences were observed in 30-day stroke/death (1 [0.7%] vs. 0 [0%]; p > 0.99) or 31-day to 1-year stroke (6 [4.0%] vs. 5 [7.5%]; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 - 2.82; p = 0.49) between the two groups. Symptomatic ISR occurred exclusively in BMS group (2.6%, 1/39). Stent fracture rates were numerically higher with dedicated DES (13 [8.7%] vs 3 [4.5%], p = 0.60), with ISR occurring in 25.0% (4/16) of fractured versus 17.4% (35/201) of nonfractured stents. Mortality beyond 30 days was similar (1 [0.7%] vs 1 [1.5%], p > 0.99).
conclusionsRapamycin-eluting vertebral artery stents significantly reduced ISR rates compared to BMS in symptomatic severe VAOS, while maintaining comparable short- and mid-term safety. Stent fracture warrants further investigation as a potential modulator of ISR risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.