Endovascular treatment versus standard medical treatment for basilar artery occlusion: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Acute ischemic stroke caused by basilar artery occlusion (BAO) is devastating, but the optimal treatment for patients with BAO remains controversial. In this study, the authors aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment (ET) versus standard medical treatment (SMT) in patients with BAO. METHODS The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was good functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–3 at 90 days. The secondary efficacy outcome was excellent functional outcome defined as an mRS score of 0–2 at 90 days. The safety outcomes included mortality at 90 days and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Subgroup analyses were carried out based on race (Asian or non-Asian). RESULTS Four RCTs of 988 patients (556 in the ET group and 432 in the SMT group) were included in this meta-analysis. The proportion of good functional outcome in the ET group was significantly higher than that in the SMT group (45.1% vs 29.6%; number needed to treat 6.45; RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.16–2.06; p = 0.003, I2 = 60%). The subgroup analysis based on race showed a significant difference between Asian and non-Asian race in the primary outcome (p = 0.03, I2 = 78.5%). Patients in the ET group had a higher rate of excellent functional outcome at 90 days than those in the SMT group (34.9% vs 20.6%; RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07–3.12; p = 0.03, I2 = 80%). Patients in the ET group had a lower mortality at 90 days (35.6% vs 45.4%; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66–0.89; p = 0.0007, I2 = 0%) but a higher rate of sICH (5.4% vs 0.5%; RR 8.29, 95% CI 2.49–27.66; p = 0.0006, I2 = 0%) than those in the SMT group. CONCLUSIONS ET may improve the functional outcome and reduce mortality at 90 days but increase the risk of sICH compared with SMT in patients with BAO. This conclusion needs to be confirmed in non-Asian populations in future studies. Systematic review registration no.: CRD42022357718 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/)