↓ Skip to main content

Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis: more harm than good

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stenting versus aggressive medical therapy for intracranial arterial stenosis: more harm than good
Published in
Critical Care, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11326
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muthanna Al Hasan, Raghavan Murugan

Abstract

EXPANDED ABSTRACT: CITATION: Chimowitz MI, Lynn MJ, Derdeyn CP, Turan TN, Fiorella D, Lane BF, Janis LS, Lutsep HL, Barnwell SL, Waters MF, Hoh BL, Hourihane JM, Levy EI, Alexandrov AV, Harrigan MR, Chiu D, Klucznik RP, Clark JM, McDougall CG, Johnson MD, Pride GL Jr, Torbey MT, Zaidat OO, Rumboldt Z, Cloft HJ, for the SAMMPRIS Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 2011, 365:993-1003. PubMed PMID: 21899409. This is available on http://www.pubmed.gov. BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic intracranial arterial stenosis is an important cause of stroke that is increasingly being treated with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) to prevent recurrent stroke. However, PTAS has not been compared with medical management in a randomized trial. METHODS: Objective: To determine whether intracranial stenting (using the Wingspan self-expanding nitinol stent, Boston Scientific) and intensive medical therapy is superior to intensive medical therapy alone for preventing stroke in recently symptomatic patients with severe intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis.Design: Phase III, multi-center, randomized, open label, clinical trial.Setting: 50 sites in the USSubjects: Patients who had a recent transient ischemic attack or stroke attributed to stenosis of 70 to 99% of the diameter of a major intracranial artery.Intervention: Eligible patients were randomized to receive either aggressive medical medical management alone or aggressive medical management plus PTAS with the use of the Wingspan stent system.Outcomes: The primary end point was stroke or death within 30 days after enrollment or after a revascularization procedure for the qualifying lesion during the follow-up period or stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery beyond 30 days. Patients in the medical arm who undergo angioplasty for recurrent TIAs (i.e. crossovers) and who have a stroke or death within 30 days will also meet this endpoint. RESULTS: Of the 451 patients who underwent randomization, 227 were assigned to the medical management group and 224 to the PTAS group. The 30-day rate of stroke or death was 14.7% in the PTAS group (nonfatal stroke, 12.5%; fatal stroke, 2.2%) and 5.8% in the medical-management group (nonfatal stroke, 5.3%; non-stroke-related death, 0.4%) (P = 0.002). Beyond 30 days, stroke in the same territory occurred in 13 patients in each group. The probability of the occurrence of a primary end-point event over time differed significantly between the two treatment groups (P = 0.009), with 1-year rates of the primary end point of 20.0% in the PTAS group and 12.2% in the medical-management group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intracranial arterial stenosis, aggressive medical management was superior to PTAS with the use of the Wingspan stent system, both because the risk of early stroke after PTAS was high and because the risk of stroke with aggressive medical therapy alone was lower than expected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
France 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 50 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 20%
Other 8 15%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 65%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,467
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,541
of 176,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#61
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 176,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.