Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35503467›Full record

SynthesisClinical neuroradiology2022

Endovascular Therapy for Intracranial Giant Cell Arteritis : Systematic Review, Technical Considerations and the Effect of Intra-arterial Calcium Channel Blockers.

M Travis Caton, Ian T Mark, Kazim H Narsinh, Amanda Baker, Daniel L Cooke, Steven W Hetts, Christopher F Dowd, Van V Halbach, Randall T Higashida, Nerissa U Ko and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical neuroradiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intracranial GCA: a comprehensive systematic review.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M Travis CatonDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA. michael.caton2@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1581-7702
Ian T MarkDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Kazim H NarsinhDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Amanda BakerDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Daniel L CookeDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Steven W HettsDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Christopher F DowdDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Van V HalbachDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Randall T HigashidaDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Nerissa U KoDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Sharon A ChungDepartment of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Matthew R AmansDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Interventional Neuroradiology Section, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, Room L349, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Improved durability of sinus stenting for idiopathic intracranial hypertension using advanced MR flow analysisR56HL149124 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI AMANS, MATTHEW · 2019 to 2019
$555k
NHLBI NIH HHS R56HL149124-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiant cell arteritis (GCA) is a systemic vasculitis that may cause ischemic stroke. Rarely, GCA can present with aggressive intracranial stenoses, which are refractory to medical therapy. Endovascular treatment (EVT) is a possible rescue strategy to prevent ischemic complications in intracranial GCA but the safety and efficacy of EVT in this setting are not well-described.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed to identify case reports and series with individual patient-level data describing EVT for intracranial GCA. The clinical course, therapeutic considerations, and technique of seven endovascular treatments in a single patient from the authors' experience are presented.

resultsThe literature review identified 9 reports of 19 treatments, including percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with or without stenting, in 14 patients (mean age 69.6 ± 6.3 years). Out of 12 patients 8 (66.7%) with sufficient data had > 1 pre-existing cardiovascular risk factor. All patients had infarction on MRI while on glucocorticoids and 7/14 (50%) progressed despite adjuvant immunosuppressive agents. Treatment was PTA alone in 15/19 (78.9%) cases and PTA + stent in 4/19 (21.1%). Repeat treatments were performed in 4/14 (28.6%) of patients (PTA-only). Non-flow limiting dissection was reported in 2/19 (10.5%) of treatments. The indications, technical details, and results of PTA are discussed in a single illustrative case. We report the novel use of intra-arterial calcium channel blocker infusion (verapamil) as adjuvant to PTA and as monotherapy, resulting in immediate improvement in cerebral blood flow.

conclusionEndovascular treatment, including PTA with or without stenting or calcium channel blocker infusion, may be effective therapies in medically refractory GCA with intracranial stenosis.

Indexed as

Angioplasty, BalloonGiant Cell ArteritisAgedAngioplastyCalcium Channel BlockersConstriction, PathologicHumansMiddle AgedStentsTreatment OutcomeCalcium Channel BlockersAngioplastyCerebral ischemiaIntracranial stenosisVasculitisVerapamil

Identifiers

PMID35503467
PMCPMC9744710
OpenAlexW4225295310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.