ReviewDer Nervenarzt2006
[Endovascular treatment for intracranial stenoses. A common statement by neurologists and neuroradiologists].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00816166 (Phase III Study of Pharos Vitesse Neurovascular Stent System Compared to Best Medical Therapy for the Treatment of Ischemic Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Phase III Study of Pharos Vitesse Neurovascular Stent System Compared to Best Medical Therapy for the Treatment of Ischemic Disease
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stent angioplasty of intracranial stenosis: single center experience of 54 cases.Clinical neuroradiology · 2012Trial
- Intracranial stenting of atherosclerotic stenoses: current status and perspectives.Klinische Neuroradiologie · 2009Review
- Treatment of symptomatic high-grade intracranial stenoses with the balloon-expandable Pharos stent: initial experience.Neuroradiology · 2008Article
- Endovascular therapy of symptomatic intracranial stenosis in patients with impaired regional cerebral blood flow or failure of medical therapy.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracranial stenoses cause 5-10% of all strokes and are increasingly detected by means of modern imaging methods. The stroke danger of high-grade symptomatic stenoses is relatively high, with an annual risk of approximately 10% under medical treatment. Coumadin increases the risk of hemorrhage, and after risk/benefit considerations, antiplatelets should be preferred for antithrombotic therapy. Despite optimized medical treatment, a small group of patients with recurrent symptoms or symptomatic stenoses without adequate collateral supply probably carry higher spontaneous stroke risk and may be considered for intracranial stenting, which itself is associated with procedural risks of up to 10%. Currently published case series show relatively high complication rates as a major drawback of endovascular treatment, mainly strokes after occlusion of perforating branches extending from the stenotic vessel segment or hemorrhagic complications. According to data from smaller feasibility studies, stroke rates in follow-up after successful stenting seem to be low. The average rate of high-grade restenosis with possible indication for reintervention is 10%. Improvements in endovascular treatment aim at reducing vessel wall trauma during balloon angioplasty by underdilatation or the use of self-expanding stents. Until complication rates are dependably reduced to values of 5-6%, indication for endovascular treatment should be restricted to patients without therapeutic alternatives. According to limited data with large variation between different studies, a prospective multicentric registry is proposed for systematic evaluation and further development of the method.
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.