SynthesisInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2024
Endovascular treatments of intracranial vertebral and internal carotid arteries dissections: An interactive systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stent-assisted coil embolization of ruptured vertebral artery dissected aneurysm with severe stenosis of bilateral vertebral artery V4 segment by the transmountain technique: a case report and review of the literatures.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Difficulty and prospects of endovascular treatment for spontaneous intracranial artery dissection.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Sudden unilateral hearing loss and vertigo following isolated cerebellar hypoperfusion without infarction due to vertebral artery dissection.BMC neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionManagement of intracranial artery dissection (IAD) remains elusive in medical practice. Intracranially, vertebral artery dissection (VAD) is more commonly encountered than internal carotid artery dissection (ICAD). Deconstructive (EVT-d) and reconstructive (EVT-r) endovascular techniques have been utilized to treat VAD and ICAD. This meta-analysis investigates the safety and efficacy of EVT-r and EVT-d in the management of VAD and ICAD.
methodsThe literature was searched for all studies with consecutive patient series evaluating EVT-d or EVT-r for VAD or ICAD management. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between EVT-r and EVT-d groups using the random-effect model and meta-regression approaches.
resultsOverall, 1095 cases pooled from 56 studies were included. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline characteristics between VAD and ICAD. EVT-r was applied in 647 cases (59.1%) and EVT-d in the rest There was no statistical difference in the rate of procedural complications between EVT-r and EVT-d. Although EVT-d was significantly associated with higher rates of complete aneurysm occlusion (86.4%), lower rates of good clinical outcomes (72.1%) and higher mortality (15.1%) were achieved compared to EVT-r (70.2%, 83.3%, and 9.5%; respectively). The mortality rate was higher, and good clinical outcomes were less common in ruptured aneurysms. Ischemic presentation was statistically associated with poor outcomes (mRS 3-5) but low mortality. ICAD often tended to grow following treatment and resulted in poor neurological outcomes.
conclusionsIAD has favorable outcomes when treated appropriately. Novel reconstructive endovascular techniques are promising and should be integrated well in endovascular practice. Further studies are warranted.
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.