Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 337

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

US Multicenter Experience With the Wingspan Stent System for the Treatment of Intracranial Atheromatous Disease: Periprocedural Results

Open access
Fiorella, David, Levy, Elad I., Turk, Aquilla S., Albuquerque, Felipe C., Niemann, David B., Aagaard-Kienitz, Beverly, Hanel, Ricardo A., Woo, Henry, Rasmussen, Peter A., Hopkins, L. Nelson, Masaryk, Thomas J., McDougall, Cameron G.·2007·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— The current report details our initial periprocedural experience with Wingspan (Boston Scientific/Target), the first self-expanding stent system designed for the treatment of intracranial atheromatous disease. Methods— All patients undergoing angioplasty and stenting with the Gateway balloon–Wingspan stent system were prospectively tracked. Results— During a 9-month period, treatment with the stent system was attempted in 78 patients (average age, 63.6 years; 33 women) with 82 intracranial atheromatous lesions, of which 54 were ≥70% stenotic. Eighty-one of 82 lesions were successfully stented (98.8%) during the first treatment session. In 1 case, the stent could not be delivered across the lesion; the patient was treated solely with angioplasty and stented at a later date. Lesions treated involved the internal carotid (n=32; 8 petrous, 10 cavernous, 11 supraclinoid segment, 3 terminus), vertebral (n=14; V4 segment), basilar (n=14), and middle cerebral (n=22) arteries. Mean±SD pretreatment stenosis was 74.6±13.9%, improving to 43.5±18.1% after balloon angioplasty and to 27.2±16.7% after stent placement. Of the 82 lesions treated, there were 5 (6.1%) major periprocedural neurological complications, 4 of which ultimately led to patient death within 30 days of the procedure. Conclusions— Angioplasty and stenting for symptomatic intracranial atheromatous disease can be performed with the Gateway balloon–Wingspan stent system with a high rate of technical success and acceptable periprocedural morbidity. Our initial experience indicates that this procedure represents a viable treatment option for this patient population.

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 · 10.1161/01.str.0000257963.65728.e8

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Cited by

See all 337

Metadata

Authors
Fiorella, D., Levy, E. I., Turk, A. S., Albuquerque, F. C., Niemann, D. B., Aagaard-Kienitz, B., Hanel, R. A., Woo, H., Rasmussen, P. A., Hopkins, L. N., Masaryk, T. J., & McDougall, C. G.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2007-03
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
881-887
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2005055910
Cited by
337
References
11
FWCI
26.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: US Multicenter Experience With the Wingspan Stent System for the Treatment of Intracranial Atheromatous Disease: Periprocedural Results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000257963.65728.e8
The paper
Fiorella, D., Levy, E. I., Turk, A. S., Albuquerque, F. C., Niemann, D. B., Aagaard-Kienitz, B., Hanel, R. A., Woo, H., Rasmussen, P. A., Hopkins, L. N., Masaryk, T. J., & McDougall, C. G. (2007). US Multicenter Experience With the Wingspan Stent System for the Treatment of Intracranial Atheromatous Disease: Periprocedural Results. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000257963.65728.e8

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.