ArticleScientific reports2024
Different antiplatelet regimens for stenting versus coiling for acutely-ruptured cerebral aneurysms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The timing of intraprocedural antiplatelet therapy did not affect outcomes in endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms: A systematic review.Neuroradiology · 2026Pooled it
- Complex Anatomy, Advanced Techniques: Microsurgical Clipping of a Ruptured Hypophyseal Artery Aneurysm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the safety, efficacy and risk factors for complications of stenting with optional coiling versus coiling alone for acutely ruptured cerebral aneurysms (ARCAs) using different antiplatelet schemes, 2021 patients were prospectively enrolled into the stenting group (n = 967) and the coiling group (n = 1054). Four different antiplatelet regimens were used. The clinical and treatment data were analyzed and compared. In the stenting group, the common antiplatelet regimen was applied in 259 patients (26.8%), loading regimen in 210 (21.7%), intravenous tirofiban regimen in 240 (24.8%), and premedication free regimen in 258 (26.7%). The aneurysm occlusion degrees in the coiling vs. stenting group were not significantly (P > 0.05) different after treatment. Complications occurred in 168 (15.94%) and 171 (17.68%) patients in the coiling and the stenting group, respectively. Fifteen (1.55%) patients experienced stent-related ischemic complications. The only significant (P < 0.05) independent protective factor for complete occlusion was stent-assisted coiling in the stenting group but aneurysm daughter sac in the coiling group. Significant (P < 0.05) independent risk factors for poor mRS (3-6) were posterior circulation aneurysms and neurological bleeding complications in the stenting group and neurological complications in the coiling group. In the stenting group, the only independent risk factor was parent artery stenosis for neurological complications, Raymond grade III for neurological ischemic complications, and the ice cream technique for total complications in the stenting group. In conclusion, different antiplatelet schemes can be safely and efficiently used for intracranial stenting with optional coiling as compared with coiling alone for ARCAs.
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.