Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Systematic review finds low-certainty evidence against endovascular therapy superiority in vertebral artery stenosisStents May Not Stop Strokes in Narrowed Neck Arteries

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that low-certainty evidence does not support endovascular therapy superiority over medical treatment alone for vertebral artery stenosis.

This systematic review assessed whether endovascular therapy (ET) plus medical treatment is superior to medical treatment alone for preventing stroke or death in adults aged 18 years or over with symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis. The scope included recent posterior circulation transient ischaemic attack or non-disabling ischaemic stroke. Medical treatment comprised risk-factor control, antiplatelet therapy, lipid-lowering therapy, and individualised management. Endovascular interventions included angioplasty alone, balloon-mounted stenting, or angioplasty followed by self-expanding stent plus medical treatment.

The review reported low-certainty evidence across primary and secondary outcomes. For 30-day post-randomisation death or stroke, the relative risk was 2.02 (95% CI 0.73 to 5.55). Fatal or non-fatal strokes in the treated territory showed a relative risk of 0.54 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.01). Stroke during the entire follow-up period had a relative risk of 0.76 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.26). Death during the entire follow-up period had a relative risk of 0.83 (95% CI 0.41 to 1.66). Stroke or TIA during the entire follow-up period showed a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.06).

The authors noted several limitations, including a high risk of performance bias because blinding of endovascular therapy was not feasible. Three of the four trials were terminated early, and sample sizes were small, leading to imprecise effect estimates. No included study reported restenosis or good functional outcome. Safety data, including adverse events and discontinuations, were not reported. The follow-up duration was not reported.

Practice relevance is limited by the low certainty of evidence. There is no reliable evidence that endovascular treatment plus medical treatment is superior to medical treatment alone in preventing stroke or death. Clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously given the high risk of performance bias and the inability to distinguish association from causation.

Imagine waking up with a sudden dizziness that makes the room spin. You might think it's just a bad night's sleep. But for some people, this feeling is a warning sign from their brain.

Doctors call this a vertebrobasilar event. It happens when a major artery in the neck gets too narrow. This blockage cuts off blood flow to the back of the brain.

The Surprising Shift

For years, doctors assumed that fixing this narrow spot was the best move. They would use a tiny balloon to widen the artery. Sometimes, they would leave a small metal mesh tube, called a stent, behind to keep it open.

The goal was simple: clear the blockage and stop future strokes. But new research suggests this plan might not be as helpful as we thought.

These narrow arteries affect many people. They often happen alongside high blood pressure or high cholesterol. Left untreated, they can lead to serious strokes.

Current treatments focus on medicine. Doctors prescribe pills to lower blood pressure and thin the blood. However, many patients worry that medicine alone isn't enough. They want a procedure to physically fix the problem.

The old belief was clear: if the pipe is clogged, you must unclog it. Surgeons would perform a procedure called angioplasty. They would push a wire through the neck artery to the blockage.

But here's the twist. A massive review of studies shows that adding this procedure to medicine does not clearly reduce strokes. In fact, the data is too uncertain to say it helps much at all.

Think of your arteries like garden hoses. If a hose gets kinked, water flows poorly. Doctors used to think straightening the kink would fix the flow immediately.

However, the body is complex. The arteries in the neck are soft and move when you turn your head. Placing a stiff metal stent there can cause new problems. Sometimes, the stent itself can irritate the artery wall and cause a clot to form.

Researchers looked at four major studies involving 429 adults. These patients had recently suffered a minor stroke or a warning sign called a transient ischemic attack.

They compared two groups. One group got medicine alone. The other group got medicine plus the stenting procedure. The doctors watched them for up to a year to see who had fewer strokes or deaths.

The results were mixed. There was no clear proof that the stent group had fewer strokes than the medicine-only group. The numbers were too wide to be sure.

Some data suggested a tiny benefit, but other data showed no difference. The study authors admitted the evidence is low quality. They noted that the studies were small and hard to run fairly because doctors knew who got the stent.

But there's a catch.

This uncertainty means we cannot confidently say the procedure helps. It also means we cannot say it harms patients. The truth sits somewhere in the middle, and we don't know exactly where.

Medical experts agree that this area needs more study. They note that most of the current data comes from older trials. These trials stopped early in some cases.

Because the trials ended early, the results might not reflect what happens in the long run. Experts say we need bigger studies to get a clear answer. Until then, doctors must weigh the risks carefully.

If you have a narrowed artery, do not panic. This news does not mean you need surgery. It means surgery is not automatically the best choice for everyone.

Talk to your doctor about your specific risks. If your artery is very narrow and causing symptoms, they will discuss all options. But know that medicine alone is a strong first step.

We must be honest about the limits of this research. The studies included only 429 people. That is a small number for such a serious condition.

Also, the studies were not perfectly designed. Doctors could not hide who got the stent from the patients. This can change how patients feel and report their symptoms. These factors make the results less precise.

Scientists are already planning better studies. They want to use larger groups of patients. They also want to follow people for longer periods.

Until these new studies finish, the standard advice remains the same. Manage your risk factors like blood pressure and cholesterol. Take your prescribed medicines. And listen to your doctor's guidance for your unique situation.

Study Details

Study typeSystematic review
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Rationale Vertebral artery stenosis (VAS), which refers to the narrowing of the vertebral artery, is a significant cause of posterior circulation ischaemic stroke. Medical treatment involves managing risk factors and using medications, while endovascular treatment typically consists of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, which may be performed with or without stenting. Despite these available options, optimal management of people with symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis has not yet been established. Objectives To assess the benefits and harm of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, with or without stenting, plus medical treatment (MT), compared with MT alone, in people with episodes of vertebrobasilar ischaemia due to vertebral artery stenosis. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, and two other indexes on the Web of Science, China Biological Medicine Database, Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov trials register and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 9 Dec 2025. Eligibility criteria We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared endovascular therapy (ET) plus MT with MT alone in treating people aged 18 years or over with symptomatic VAS. We included all types of ET modalities, such as angioplasty alone, balloon‐mounted stenting, and angioplasty followed by the placement of a self‐expanding stent. The MT regimen encompassed risk‐factor control, antiplatelet therapy, lipid‐lowering therapy, and individualised management for patients with hypertension or diabetes. Outcomes Our outcomes were 30‐day post‐randomisation death or stroke; fatal or non‐fatal stroke in the territory of the treated vertebral artery from 30 days after randomisation to the end of follow‐up; stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) during the entire follow‐up period; death during the entire follow‐up period; stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) during the entire follow‐up period; and ≥ 50% restenosis of the treated vertebral artery documented by conventional cerebral angiography. All strokes and TIAs were newly diagnosed events. We evaluated all important outcomes during the entire follow‐up period. Risk of bias We assessed risk of bias in RCTs using version 1 of the Cochrane tool (RoB 1). Synthesis methods Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and pooled results using fixed‐effect meta‐analysis when studies were sufficiently similar; otherwise, we provided a narrative synthesis. We used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence and summarised key outcomes in a summary of findings table. Included studies We included a total of four multicentre RCTs with 429 participants who had symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis, all comparing endovascular treatment plus medical treatment versus medical treatment alone in adults with recent posterior circulation transient ischaemic attack or non‐disabling ischaemic stroke. Synthesis of results We included four RCTs with 429 participants who had symptomatic vertebral artery stenosis, with a mean age of 63.4 years. Three of the four RCTs (VAST, VIST, and SAMMPRIS) were stopped early, and all trials had a high risk of performance bias because blinding of the endovascular therapy was not feasible, which limits the precision of treatment‐effect estimates. Overall, the certainty of the evidence is low, mainly due to the high risk of performance bias, early termination of three of the four trials, small sample sizes, and imprecision of the effect estimates.There was no clear evidence of a difference in 30‐day post‐randomisation deaths/strokes between ET plus MT and MT alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 5.55; 4 studies, 429 participants; low‐certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference between ET plus MT and MT alone in fatal/non‐fatal strokes in the territory of the treated vertebral artery stenosis after 30 days post‐randomisation to completion of follow‐up (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.01; 4 studies, 429 participants; low‐certainty evidence); in ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke during the entire follow‐up period (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.26; 4 studies, 429 participants; low‐certainty evidence); or in death during the entire follow‐up period (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.66; 4 studies, 429 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Low‐certainty evidence suggests that ET plus MT may make little or no difference to stroke or transient ischaemic attack during follow‐up (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06; 2 studies, 234 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Of the prespecified outcomes, no included study reported restenosis or good functional outcome, so these outcomes could not be analysed. Authors' conclusions Based on four RCTs including 429 participants, there may be little to no difference between endovascular treatment plus medical treatment and medical treatment alone in 30‐day post‐randomisation death/stroke, fatal/non‐fatal stroke in the territory of the treated vertebral artery stenosis after 30 days post‐randomisation to completion of follow‐up, stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) during the entire follow‐up period, death during the entire follow‐up period, and stroke or transient ischaemic attack during the entire follow‐up period. Overall, the certainty of the evidence is low. We found no reliable evidence that endovascular treatment plus medical treatment is superior to medical treatment alone in preventing stroke or death. Confidence intervals are wide and compatible with either modest benefit or modest harm from the addition of endovascular treatment. Funding This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 82301468 and 82501574), the Beijing Nova Program (grant number: 20230484336), the Beijing Hospitals Authority's Ascent Plan (grant number: DFL20220702), the Xuanwu Hospital Talent Seed Program (grant number: YC20250107), and the Beijing Hospitals Authority Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support (grant number: ZLRK202320). Registration The protocol to this review has not been published. The original review can be accessed as: DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013692.pub2. PICOs PICOs Population Intervention Comparison Outcome
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.