ArticleStroke and vascular neurology2019
Endovascular treatment of patients with high-risk symptomatic intracranial vertebrobasilar stenoses: long - term outcomes.
Article in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2019. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) in patients with symptomatic intracranial vertebrobasilar artery stenosis (IVBS).Stroke and vascular neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Current perspectives on the pathogenesis of cerebral atherosclerosis.Journal of inflammation (London, England) · 2025Review
- Recanalization of atherosclerotic stenosis and occlusion of intracranial vertebrobasilar artery.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2025Review
- Association between vascular calcification in intracranial vertebrobasilar circulation and luminal stenosis.Neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: We present the long-term outcome after endovascular treatment of symptomatic intracranial posterior circulation stenoses. Methods: 30 patients with symptomatic intracranial posterior circulation stenoses exceeding 70% underwent endovascular treatment between 2006 and 2012. Data regarding presentation, follow-up, procedure details, complications and imaging follow-up were reviewed. All surviving patients underwent a phone interview to establish their current Modified Ranking Scales (MRS). Results: Stenoses of the intracranial vertebral artery (24 patients) and basilar artery (6 patients) were treated with stents (10 patients), angioplasty alone (13 patients) or both (5 patients). Two procedures failed. One patient (3.3%) died after the procedure, two had stroke (6.6%) and one a subarachnoid haemorrhage without ensuing deficit. Two patients (6.7%) had asymptomatic complications (dissection and pseudoaneurysm). The median clinical follow-up time was 7 years. Of the 29 patients who survived the procedure, 6 died due to unrelated causes. Three patients (10%) had recurrent strokes and two (6.7%) a transient ischaemic attack in the posterior circulation. Two patients had subsequent middle cerebral artery strokes. Five (16.7%) patients had recurrent stenoses and three (10%) occlusions of the treated artery. Retreatment was performed in six patients, three (10%) with PTA and three (10%) with stenting. Current MRS scores were as follows: nine MRS 0, eight MRS 1, four MRS 2 and one MRS 4. Conclusions: Long-term follow-up after endovascular treatment of high-risk symptomatic intracranial posterior circulation stenoses shows few stroke recurrences. Treatment of intracranial vertebral artery stenosis may be beneficial in appropriately selected patients.
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.