Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
LetterLetter

Reply:

D.F. Kallmes and H.J. Cloft
American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2008, 29 (8) e70; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1082
D.F. Kallmes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H.J. Cloft
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

The premise of the letter by Dr. Levy et al is exactly correct. Everybody has an agenda. We personally think that our agenda is to evaluate scientifically the available data regarding treatment of intracranial atherosclerosis in an effort to improve patient care. We appreciate their attempts to clarify their opinions, but we will stand by the content of our commentary.1 Our intent was not to personally attack them, but to offer an alternative view of the data that they present and thereby stimulate lively debate. In regard to the use of the term “spin” in the title, we meant no offense. “Spin” is the way in which facts and opinion are presented, and the readers can decide for themselves which presentation they prefer. We do not claim to have a monopoly on truth, but we do believe that we had some valid points that many readers might like to consider, as well as a right to express them.

The debate about appropriate treatment of intracranial stenosis did not start with Warfarin Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WASID) or Wingspan (Wingspan stent; Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass). There was plenty of anxiety among our peers before WASID2 was published regarding the natural history of intracranial atherosclerosis treated with medical therapy. We recall a fairly static level of anxiety about the natural history and enthusiasm for endovascular therapy during the past decade. The readers can rely on their own memories of recent events and draw their own conclusions.

We admit that we do not know whether restenosis with Wingspan is better or worse than with the balloon-expandable stent or with angioplasty alone, in part because the definition used by Turk et al is new and not directly comparable with previously published results. However, the mathematic bias in the methods used by Turk et al led us to suspect that a higher restenosis rate with Wingspan is a distinct possibility. They could clarify this issue by reporting a binary restenosis rate that includes occlusions. However, only a prospective randomized trial that directly evaluates Wingspan versus another device could really definitively address this issue.

We did not assert that a Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) approval for Wingspan was “unnecessary.” A HDE approval is indeed necessary for a manufacturer to market a medical device for a specific indication, but by definition, it is based on little scientific evidence. We merely meant to bring attention to some of the scientific uncertainties that surround this HDE-approved device. By their very nature and definition, HDE-approved devices are released for use on the basis of scant data; if there were more data to support their safety and efficacy, the manufacturer would be able to get premarket approval. As Turk et al point out, this HDE status of Wingspan and off-label status of other devices does indeed have potential medicolegal implications, but this issue has nothing to do with the relative efficacy or safety of these devices, which should be the primary consideration.

Drs. Derdeyn and Chimowitz have read cynicism into our commentary, and we can understand this perspective. However, we were really just trying to be blunt in presenting our alternative reading of the data reported by Turk et al. Obviously, on the basis of the article by Turk et al3 and our accompanying response,1 a whole spectrum of opinions could be supported by the available data, or lack thereof. This simply demonstrates that there are huge gaps in our knowledge about the best treatment for intracranial stenosis, with many clinically important issues to be sorted out. Prospective randomized studies such as Stent Placement versus Aggressive Medical Management for the Prevention of Recurrent stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) are indeed the way to go, because this is the only way that we will get truly conclusive facts, rather than a few inconclusive facts mixed in with a lot of opinion or “spin.”

References

  1. ↵
    Kallmes DF, Cloft HJ. How do we spin Wingspan? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:28–20
    FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Kasner SE, Chimowitz MI, Lynn MJ, et al. Predictors of ischemic stroke in the territory of a symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis. Circulation 2006;113:555–63
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    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;29:23–27
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  • 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.
Reply:
(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.
Citation Tools
Reply:
D.F. Kallmes, H.J. Cloft
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2008, 29 (8) e70; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1082

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reply:
D.F. Kallmes, H.J. Cloft
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2008, 29 (8) e70; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A1082
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Fair Performance of CT in Diagnosing Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis
  • Reply:
  • Regarding “Altered Blood Flow in the Ophthalmic and Internal Carotid Arteries in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration Measured Using Noncontrast MR Angiography at 7T”
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire