ArticleScientific reports2025
Propensity score matched analysis of nationwide outcomes for intracranial bypass and stenting for treatment of intracranial atherosclerotic disease.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Management options for refractory intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) involve intracranial stenting or bypass. By retrospectively analyzing National Inpatient Sample database data (2012-2019), we compared costs, complications, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition of patients who underwent elective intracranial stenting or bypass for ICAD. Analyses included propensity score matching (PSM; 1:1), multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear models, and logistic regression. Overall, 556 admissions were included (mean age 65.2 years). Patients undergoing bypass were more likely than stenting patients to be female (47.3% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.028) and to have a Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 2 (77.2% vs. 61.5%, p < 0.001) but less likely to have a history of transient ischemic attack/stroke (52.2 vs. 62.0%, p = 0.027). PSM yielded a subset of 330 patients (165 stenting, 165 bypass). The unadjusted cost of bypass admissions exceeded that of stent admissions (mean $24,659 vs. $20,750, p = 0.056), driven by significantly longer LOS for bypass (B = 1.69, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the odds of complications or adverse discharge by treatment (p > 0.05). These data suggest that for patients with ICAD undergoing an elective intervention, bypass and stenting have largely comparable overall costs and short-term outcomes. Treatment for refractory ICAD should be individualized based on patient and clinical criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.