You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Response from the SAMMPRIS trial principal investigators regarding inaccuracies in this editorial
  1. Colin P Derdeyn1,
  2. David Fiorella2,
  3. Marc Chimowitz3
  1. 1Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, St Louis, Missouri, USA
  2. 2Department of Neurosurgery, Stony Brook, New York, New York, USA
  3. 3Department of Neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Colin P Derdeyn, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University, 510 South Kingshighway Blvd, St Louis, MO 63110, USA; derdeync{at}wustl.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2012-010496

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    As the principal investigators for the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for the Prevention of Recurrent Ischemic Stroke (SAMMPRIS) trial,1 we are compelled to address a few inaccuracies regarding this study in the recent editorial by Dr Alexander.2

    The first point is the patient population. The SAMMPRIS population was the right patient population to test. We had very good data from the Warfarin versus Aspirin for Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WASID) trial that patients with recently symptomatic severe stenosis were at the highest risk for recurrent stroke.3 This high-risk population offered the best chance for showing a benefit with …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.