Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 881

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aggressive medical treatment with or without stenting in high-risk patients with intracranial artery stenosis (SAMMPRIS): the final results of a randomised trial

Open access
Derdeyn, Colin P, Chimowitz, Marc I, Lynn, Michael J, Fiorella, David, Turan, Tanya N, Janis, L Scott, Montgomery, Jean, Nizam, Azhar, Lane, Bethany F, Lutsep, Helmi L, Barnwell, Stanley L, Waters, Michael F, Hoh, Brian L, Hourihane, J Maurice, Levy, Elad I, Alexandrov, Andrei V, Harrigan, Mark R, Chiu, David, Klucznik, Richard P, Clark, Joni M, McDougall, Cameron G, Johnson, Mark D, Pride, G Lee, Lynch, John R, Zaidat, Osama O, Rumboldt, Zoran, Cloft, Harry J·2014·The Lancet

Abstract

Summary Background Early results of the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent stroke in Intracranial Stenosis trial showed that, by 30 days, 33 (14·7%) of 224 patients in the stenting group and 13 (5·8%) of 227 patients in the medical group had died or had a stroke (percentages are product limit estimates), but provided insufficient data to establish whether stenting offered any longer-term benefit. Here we report the long-term outcome of patients in this trial. Methods We randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by centre with randomly permuted block sizes) 451 patients with recent transient ischaemic attack or stroke related to 70–99% stenosis of a major intracranial artery to aggressive medical management (antiplatelet therapy, intensive management of vascular risk factors, and a lifestyle-modification programme) or aggressive medical management plus stenting with the Wingspan stent. The primary endpoint was any of the following: stroke or death within 30 days after enrolment, ischaemic stroke in the territory of the qualifying artery beyond 30 days of enrolment, or stroke or death within 30 days after a revascularisation procedure of the qualifying lesion during follow-up. Primary endpoint analysis of between-group differences with log-rank test was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT 00576693. Findings During a median follow-up of 32·4 months, 34 (15%) of 227 patients in the medical group and 52 (23%) of 224 patients in the stenting group had a primary endpoint event. The cumulative probability of the primary endpoints was smaller in the medical group versus the percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting (PTAS) group (p=0·0252). Beyond 30 days, 21 (10%) of 210 patients in the medical group and 19 (10%) of 191 patients in the stenting group had a primary endpoint. The absolute differences in the primary endpoint rates between the two groups were 7·1% at year 1 (95% CI 0·2 to 13·8%; p=0·0428), 6·5% at year 2 (−0·5 to 13·5%; p=0·07) and 9·0% at year 3 (1·5 to 16·5%; p=0·0193). The occurrence of the following adverse events was higher in the PTAS group than in the medical group: any stroke (59 [26%] of 224 patients vs 42 [19%] of 227 patients; p=0·0468) and major haemorrhage (29 [13%] of 224 patients vs 10 [4%] of 227 patients; p=0·0009). Interpretation The early benefit of aggressive medical management over stenting with the Wingspan stent for high-risk patients with intracranial stenosis persists over extended follow-up. Our findings lend support to the use of aggressive medical management rather than PTAS with the Wingspan system in high-risk patients with atherosclerotic intracranial arterial stenosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62038-3

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 881

Metadata

Authors
Derdeyn, C. P., Chimowitz, M. I., Lynn, M. J., Fiorella, D., Turan, T. N., Janis, L. S., Montgomery, J., Nizam, A., Lane, B. F., Lutsep, H. L., Barnwell, S. L., Waters, M. F., Hoh, B. L., Hourihane, J. M., Levy, E. I., Alexandrov, A. V., Harrigan, M. R., Chiu, D., Klucznik, R. P., Clark, J. M., McDougall, C. G., Johnson, M. D., Pride, G. L., Lynch, J. R., Zaidat, O. O., Rumboldt, Z., & Cloft, H. J.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
383
Issue
9914
Pages
333-341
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2139321584
Cited by
881
References
2
FWCI
46.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aggressive medical treatment with or without stenting in high-risk patients with intracranial artery stenosis (SAMMPRIS): the final results of a randomised trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62038-3
The paper
Derdeyn, C. P., Chimowitz, M. I., Lynn, M. J., Fiorella, D., Turan, T. N., Janis, L. S., Montgomery, J., Nizam, A., Lane, B. F., Lutsep, H. L., Barnwell, S. L., Waters, M. F., Hoh, B. L., Hourihane, J. M., Levy, E. I., Alexandrov, A. V., Harrigan, M. R., Chiu, D., Klucznik, R. P., . . . Cloft, H. J. (2014). Aggressive medical treatment with or without stenting in high-risk patients with intracranial artery stenosis (SAMMPRIS): the final results of a randomised trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62038-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.