Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23811956›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2013

Acute interventional recanalisation of vertebrobasilar stenoses by angioplasty: complications and 12 months follow up.

C M Kowoll, W Moeller-Hartmann, G R Fink, W F Haupt, J Sobesky

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

C M KowollDepartment of Neurology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
W Moeller-Hartmann
G R Fink
W F Haupt
J Sobesky

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn acute symptomatic vertebrobasilar artery stenosis, the use of mechanical recanalisation remains controversial. The complication rate of acute interventional recanalisation (aIR) has to be considered, as evidence from randomised trials is lacking. In a single centre retrospective case series, we here describe complications and outcome after aIR.

methodsWe retrospectively assessed aIR in a tertiary care centre and included the following parameters: indication for aIR, national institute of health stroke scale (NIHSS) score on admission, recanalisation by thrombolysis in myocardial infarction score (TIMI) grades, post-interventional complications, mortality, NIHSS and modified Rankin scale at follow-up and rate of restenosis.

resultsWe identified 14 aIR (14 percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stent implantation in 12 patients; 6/12 with thrombolysis; n = 6 vertebral artery, n = 8 basilar artery; 4 women, mean age 67 years). Mortality was 25 % (3/12) after 7 days and 42 % (5/12) after 12 months. In 12/14, interventions are complete (TIMI 3, 86 %), in 2/14, a partial recanalisation (TIMI 2, 14 %) was achieved. In one case, a peri-interventional fatal intracerebral haemorrhage occurred (1/12, 8 %). At late follow-up (mean 342 days), one re-occlusion (1/7, 14 %) and one recurrent stroke (1/12, 8 %) were observed.

conclusionsIn our single centre series of vertebrobasilar aIR recanalisation rate was high. However, procedural safety and clinical outcome varied considerably. The results of aIR need to be assessed in multicentric registers to define the procedural risk and outcome in the clinical setting.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAgedAged, 80 and overAngioplastyCerebral RevascularizationConstriction, PathologicFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRadiographyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVertebrobasilar Insufficiency

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.