Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • Special Collections
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
    • 2024 AJNR Journal Awards
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcast
    • AJNR Scantastics
    • Video Articles
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Policies
    • Fast publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Submit a Case for the Case Collection
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • Special Collections
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
    • 2024 AJNR Journal Awards
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcast
    • AJNR Scantastics
    • Video Articles
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Policies
    • Fast publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Submit a Case for the Case Collection
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

Welcome to the new AJNR, Updated Hall of Fame, and more. Read the full announcements.


AJNR is seeking candidates for the position of Associate Section Editor, AJNR Case Collection. Read the full announcement.

 

LetterLetter

Re: Turk et al and the “How Do We Spin Wingspan?” Commentary

C.P. Derdeyn and M.I. Chimowitz
American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2008, 29 (8) e69; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1084
C.P. Derdeyn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M.I. Chimowitz
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

The article by Turk et al1 is an important contribution to the literature regarding the endovascular management of symptomatic intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) in general and the use of the Wingspan stent (Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass) in particular. The authors reported restenosis rates from a large prospective registry of 92 patients treated with this device. These rates were much higher than the previously reported small series that lead to the US Food and Drug Administration Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) approval.1–3 Overall rates of restenosis were similar to those in smaller case series with other devices, as noted in the commentary by Kallmes and Cloft.4 Of note, a particular phenotype—namely young women with supraclinoid carotid stenosis—seemed particularly vulnerable.2

We take issue with several points raised in the commentary “How Do We Spin Wingspan?” by Kallmes and Cloft, as well as the cynical tone of this title.4 First, the “viability” of Wingspan does not depend on these registry follow-up data, as you note in the first paragraph and later in the commentary. The true test of the benefit of this device depends on the outcome of a randomized controlled trial. Second, you suggest that a better conclusion to be drawn from the data is “by avoiding treatment of any lesions with Wingspan, the rates of restenosis might be substantially reduced.” That statement is true, of course. Restenosis is not the most important issue, however. An appropriate analogy here is the problem of coil compaction after embolization for aneurysms. By avoiding treatment of aneurysms with coils, retreatment for coil compaction might be substantially reduced. Fortunately, we have data from a randomized controlled trial (the International Symptomatic Aneurysm Trial)5 demonstrating a significant benefit for coil embolization over surgical ligation for selected patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, despite the more frequent need for retreatment in the endovascular group.

Although the asymptomatic restenosis rate with Wingspan may be higher than that reported in the HDE Wingspan study, the rate of stroke associated with restenosis has been relatively low in 2 large postmarketing Wingspan registries.1,6 This low rate also applies to restenosis following carotid stent placement.6 The low rates of stroke associated with carotid or intracranial stent placement may be because early restenosis is usually due to neointimal proliferation rather than recurrent atherosclerosis. Neointimal proliferation usually produces a smooth endothelial surface, which is less likely to ulcerate or produce turbulent flow and distal embolization than atherosclerotic stenosis.7,8

Ultimately, the effectiveness of Wingspan will have to be determined by a randomized clinical trial rather than carefully performed single-arm registries. We have organized such a trial, which is about to be launched—the Stent Placement versus Aggressive Medical Management for the Prevention of Recurrent stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) trial. This trial will be critical in establishing whether stent placement with the Wingspan system results in a better outcome than medical management in this high-risk cohort. In designing this trial, we carefully examined the data for balloon angioplasty alone, balloon-mounted coronary stents, and the Wingspan stent. The accumulated evidence best supported and continues to support Wingspan over these other options. The Wingspan registries1,2,6 have been an important prospective source of this data. Procedural complication rates are very low and appear to be lower than those in prior case series with balloon-mounted coronary stents. Additionally, technical success with Wingspan also appears to be superior to the more rigid balloon-mounted system.

In conclusion, the data from SAMMPRIS will be critical in establishing whether stent placement with Wingspan is a beneficial treatment for patients with symptomatic ICAD. If SAMMPRIS fails to demonstrate a benefit, it will provide extremely important data regarding subgroups that show promise for further investigation and benchmarks for technical improvements that may be needed to improve procedural safety and restenosis rates.

References

  1. ↵
    Turk AS, Levy EI, Albuquerque FC, et al. Influence of patient age and stenosis location on Wingspan in-stent restenosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:24–28
  2. ↵
    Levy EI, Turk AS, Albuquerque FC, et al. Wingspan in-stent restenosis and thrombosis: incidence, clinical presentation, and management. Neurosurgery 2007;61:644–50
    PubMed
  3. ↵
    Bose A, Hartmann M, Henkes H, et al. A novel, self-expanding, nitinol stent in medically refractory intracranial atherosclerotic stenoses: the Wingspan study. Stroke 2007;38:1531–37
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ. How do we spin Wingspan? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:28–29
    FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Molyneux A, Kerr R, Stratton I, et al. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) Collaborative Group. International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;360:1267–74
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Zaidat OO, KLucznik R, Alexander MJ, et al. The NIH registry on use of the Wingspan stent for symptomatic 70–99% intracranial arterial stenosis. Neurology 2008;70:1518–24
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    McCabe DJH, Pereira AC, Clifton A, et al, on behalf of CAVATAS Investigators. Restenosis after carotid angioplasty, stenting, or endarterectomy in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS). Stroke 2005;36:281–86. Epub 2005 Jan 13
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Crawley F, Clifton A, Taylor RS, et al. Symptomatic restenosis after carotid percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Lancet 1998;352:708–09
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 29 (8)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 29, Issue 8
September 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Re: Turk et al and the “How Do We Spin Wingspan?” Commentary
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
C.P. Derdeyn, M.I. Chimowitz
Re: Turk et al and the “How Do We Spin Wingspan?” Commentary
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2008, 29 (8) e69; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1084

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Re: Turk et al and the “How Do We Spin Wingspan?” Commentary
C.P. Derdeyn, M.I. Chimowitz
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2008, 29 (8) e69; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1084
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Angiographic CT after Intravenous Contrast Agent Application: A Noninvasive Follow-Up Tool after Intracranial Angioplasty and Stenting
  • Crossref (2)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Balloon Angioplasty for Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease
    Thanh N. Nguyen, Osama O. Zaidat, Rishi Gupta, Raul G. Nogueira, Nauman Tariq, Junaid S. Kalia, Alexander M. Norbash, Adnan I. Qureshi
    Stroke 2011 42 1
  • Angiographic CT after Intravenous Contrast Agent Application: A Noninvasive Follow-Up Tool after Intracranial Angioplasty and Stenting
    M.-N. Psychogios, P. Schramm, J.-H. Buhk, A. Xyda, K. Gröschel, K. Jung, M. Knauth
    American Journal of Neuroradiology 2010 31 10

More in this TOC Section

  • Brain AVM’s Nidus: What if We Hadn’t Understood Anything?
  • Letter to the Editor regarding “Automated Volumetric Software in Dementia: Help or Hindrance to the Neuroradiologist?”
  • Reply:
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editors Choice
  • Fellow Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • Special Collections

Resources

  • News and Updates
  • Turn around Times
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Policies
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Submit a Case
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcast
  • AJNR SCANtastic
  • Video Articles

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Advertise with us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Permissions
  • Terms and Conditions

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire