ReviewExpert review of medical devices2008
The Angioguard embolic protection device.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined Transradial and Transfemoral Approach With Ostial Vertebral Balloon Protection for the Treatment of Patients With Subclavian Steal Syndrome.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- 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 · 2011Article
- Initial experience of carotid artery stenting using the Carotid WALLSTENT and FilterWire EZ in Japan.Japanese journal of radiology · 2011Article
- Computational modeling of distal protection filters.Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists · 2010Article
- Magnetic resonance plaque imaging to predict the occurrence of the slow-flow phenomenon in carotid artery stenting procedures.Neuroradiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.