Association between different treatment methods for vertebral artery origin stenosis and postoperative restenosis
10.19845/j.cnki.zfysjjbzz.2025.0082
- VernacularTitle:椎动脉起始处狭窄不同治疗方式与术后再狭窄关系
- Author:
Lanqi LI
1
;
Shouchun WANG
2
Author Information
1. 北华大学附属医院神经内科，吉林 吉林 132000
2. 吉林大学第一医院神经内科卒中中心，吉林 长春 130021
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Vertebral artery origin;
Endovascular treatment;
Restenosis;
Stent;
Drug-coated balloon
- MeSH:
Stents
- From:
Journal of Apoplexy and Nervous Diseases
2025;42(5):434-439
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective
To investigate the association of bare-metal stent （BMS）， drug-coated balloon（DCB）， and plain balloon（PB） with postoperative restenosis in the treatment of vertebral artery origin stenosis （VAOS）. Methods The patients with symptomatic VAOS who underwent revascularization in our center were enrolled and divided into BMS group， DCB group， and PB group according to their treatment modality. The primary outcome was 12-month restenosis rate （≥50% stenosis）， and secondary outcomes included postoperative residual stenosis rate， 3- and 6-month restenosis rates， and 3-month good functional outcome （modified Rankin Scale score ≤1）. The binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of different treatment modalities on outcome. Results The 12-month restenosis rate was 29.3% in the BMS group， 24.4% in the DCB group， and 42.9% in the PB group， with no significant difference between the three groups（P=0.234）. There was a significant difference in the distribution of postoperative residual stenosis between groups （P<0.001），and the BMS group had a significantly higher non-residual stenosis rate than the DCB group and the PB group （95.9% vs 37.8%/14.3%）. There was no significant difference in 3-month restenosis rate between the BMS group and the DCB group （7.5% vs 17.8%， P=0.129）， and the PB group had a 3-month restenosis rate of 39.3%， which was significantly higher than that in the other two groups （both P<0.05）. There was no significant difference in 6-month restenosis rate between the BMS group and the DCB group （8.2% vs 17.8%， P=0.158）， and the PB group had a 6-month restenosis rate of 39.3%， which was significantly higher than that in the other two groups （both P<0.05）. The good clinical outcome rate at 3 months was 66.7% in the BMS group， 77.8% in the DCB group， and 64.3% in the PB group， with no significant difference between groups （P=0.323）. Conclusion There is no significant difference in 12-month restenosis rate between the three treatment modalities for VAOS， and compared with PB， both BMS and DCB can reduce restenosis rate in patients with VAOS in the short term. BMS has significant clinical advantages in restoration of vascular lumen immediately after surgery.
- Full text:2025071708152471096椎动脉起始处狭窄不同治疗方式与术后再狭窄关系.pdf
