Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18452377›Full record

ReviewExpert review of medical devices2008

The Angioguard embolic protection device.

Gail M Siewiorek, Mark K Eskandari, Ender A Finol

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Expert review of medical devices, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The association of clinical variables and filter design with carotid artery stenting thirty-day outcome.European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery · 2011
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Computational modeling of distal protection filters.Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists · 2010
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gail M SiewiorekBiomedical Engineering Department, Carnegie Mellon University, 1210 Hamburg Hall, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. gail@cmu.edu
Mark K Eskandari
Ender A Finol

Funding

Training in Biomechanics in Regenerative MedicineT32EB003392 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WOO, SAVIO L-Y. · 2005 to 2020
$4.0M
NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB003392
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endovascular management of cardiovascular disease is quickly becoming a more popular treatment. The effectiveness in using embolic protection devices (EPDs), such as the Angioguard XP filter, during carotid artery stenting (CAS) is a topic of ongoing controversy and scrutiny. Early clinical results indicate that EPDs can reduce complications associated with CAS. However, the incidence of stroke and postprocedural embolic events are statistically similar when comparing CAS with the gold standard in carotid stenosis repair, carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The focus of this manuscript is the critical evaluation of Angioguard XP with respect to numerous in vitro and ex vivo experiments, and clinical trials that have been conducted by the authors and other researchers to investigate the efficacy of EPDs with the objective of suggesting engineering design considerations for future generations of these devices. Angioguard XP has had mixed performance outcomes in in vitro testing reported in the literature. In our laboratory, this device had undesirable measures of performance in bench-top testing protocols using in vitro flow models. Technical considerations relevant to design of EPDs, such as ideal pore size, effective wall apposition in tortuous geometry and maximization of capture efficiency have not been addressed adequately in the literature. It is likely that in the future both CAS and CEA will coexist as potential forms of treatment in the clinical management of cerebrovascular disease.

Indexed as

Protective DevicesCarotid ArteriesClinical Trials as TopicEmbolismHumansPorosity

Identifiers

PMID18452377
PMCPMC3064459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.