ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Territorial Stroke in SAMMPRIS: Critical Analyses of Stroke Prevention in Intracranial Atherosclerosis.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00576693 (Stenting vs. Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis), which is not on this 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.
Stenting vs. Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines do not support the addition of stenting to maximal medical therapy (MMT) for severe symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease as first-line treatment. This is largely due to the SAMMPRIS trial (Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management Therapy for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Arterial Stenosis) results, which featured a high periprocedural stroke rate. In this study, we examined the rates of ischemic stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery (stroke in territory [SIT]) over time between MMT alone and stent+MMT.
methodsThe primary outcome was SIT. Periprocedural stroke was considered <7 days from stent placement. Log-rank analysis, Cox proportional hazards models, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves compared time to SIT between MMT and stent+MMT (day of stenting considered day 0).
resultsIn total, 435 patients were included (MMT: n=227; stent+MMT: n=208). The SIT event rate was 15.6% (68 events-MMT: n=31/227 (13.7%); stent+MMT: n=37/208 (17.8%). Twenty of the 37 stented patients had periprocedural SIT (7 early; 13 delayed). When periprocedural SIT was excluded, there were zero SIT events in the stent+MMT arm at 30 and 60 days, which was significantly lower than the MMT arm (
conclusionsContrary to Food and Drug Administration recommendations, periprocedural SIT rates did not vary by time of stenting after qualifying ischemic event. Most SIT was periprocedural, and the rate of SIT over the study period was higher in MMT when excluding periprocedural strokes. These findings are exploratory but may suggest that MMT alone may not be the most effective treatment for intracranial atherosclerotic disease and that with improvements in periprocedural safety, intracranial stenting may remain a viable treatment option. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00576693.
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.