ArticleSurgical neurology international2014
Comparison of outcomes and utilization of extracranial-intracranial bypass versus intracranial stenting for intracranial stenosis.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass and intracranial stenting (ICS) are both revascularization procedures that have emerged as treatment options for intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD). This study describes and compares recent trends in utilization and outcomes of intracranial revascularization procedures in the United States using a population-based cohort. It also investigates the association of ICS and EC-IC bypass with periprocedural morbidity and mortality, unfavorable discharge status, length of stay (LOS), and total hospital charges.
methodsThe National Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for patients with ICAD who underwent EC-IC bypass or ICS during the years 2004-2010. Patient characteristics, demographics, perioperative complications, outcomes, and discharge data were collected.
resultsThere were 627 patients who underwent ICS and 249 patients who underwent EC-IC bypass. Patients who underwent ICS were significantly older (P < 0.001) with more comorbidities (P = 0.027) than those who underwent EC-IC bypass. Patients who underwent EC-IC bypass experienced higher rates of postprocedure stroke (P = 0.014), but those who underwent ICS experienced higher rates of death (P = 0.006). Among asymptomatic patients, the rates of postprocedure stroke (P = 0.341) and death (P = 0.887) were similar between patients who underwent ICS and those who underwent EC-IC bypass. Among symptomatic patients, however, there was a higher rate of postprocedure stroke in patients who underwent EC-IC bypass (P < 0.001) and a higher rate of death among patients who underwent ICS (P = 0.015).
conclusionThe ideal management of patients with ICAD cannot yet be defined. Although much data from randomized and prospective trials on revascularization have been collected, many questions remain unanswered. There still remain cohorts of patients, specifically patients who have failed aggressive medical management, where not enough evidence is available to dictate decision-making. In order to further elucidate the safety and efficacy of these intracranial revascularization procedures, further clinical trials are needed.
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.