ArticleJournal of neurology2010
Stenting for the treatment of high-grade intracranial stenoses.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endovascular Therapy for Symptomatic Intracranial Artery Stenosis: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.Translational stroke research · 2022Pooled it
- Symptom differences and pretreatment asymptomatic interval affect outcomes of stenting for intracranial atherosclerotic disease.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2014Article
- The challenge of stroke prevention with intracranial arterial stenosis.Current cardiology reports · 2013Review
- Wingspan stents for the treatment of symptomatic atherosclerotic stenosis in small intracranial vessels: safety and efficacy evaluation.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2012Article
- Progress in cerebrovascular disease research in the last year.Journal of neurology · 2012Review
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
To date, evidence to recommend endovascular treatment in patients with intracranial stenoses is lacking. Recently, the introduction of self-expanding stents (Wingspan Stent System) aroused considerable expectations in their employ for stroke prevention. We report a single-center experience of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting in a series of consecutive patients with intracranial stenoses and compare the safety and performance of balloon-mounted stents versus self-expanding stent systems (Wingspan). Thirty-four patients with 39 severe (>70%) intracranial stenoses were treated during a 6-year period. An independent stroke neurologist collected data about intra and periprocedural complications and short-term outcome. We considered as endpoint measures (1) any 30-day stroke or death (2) any major 30-day complication and (3) procedure technical success. Technical success was achieved in all patients. No vessel dissection or ruptures were observed. The 30-day stroke/death rate was 17.9%. Five ischemic strokes in the territory of treated vessels and two intracranial hemorrhages occurred respectively within 24 h and 5 days after endovascular treatment. Three (17.6%) patients of Wingspan treated group and four (18.2%) of the patients treated with different stent systems had unfavorable outcome. Our study confirms that endovascular treatment can be performed with a high technical success rate, even though the safety of these devices has still to be demonstrated.
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.