Trial reportInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2011
Treatment of vertebral artery origin stenosis with a Pharos stent device: a single center experience.
Trial report in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atherosclerotic stenosis of vertebral artery (VA) origin exceeding 70% severity accounts for one third of all vertebrobasilar strokes. For a period of one year the results of endovascular treatment of VA stenosis with the new Pharos stent device were assessed.Twenty-two patients with symptomatic VA stenosis were treated with the Pharos stent. Clinical status and stenosis grade were documented before treatment and 24 hours, one, three and twelve months after treatment via ultrasound and magnetic resonance tomography.All procedures proved to be technically successful without the occurrence of intra-procedural complications. During the observation period of more than one year, 55% of patients were documented with a mean stenosis degree of 60%: two (10%) of these patients showed a residual stenosis after angioplasty and nine patients (45%) an in-stent restenosis, whereas only two patients were documented with a hemodynamically relevant in-stent restenosis of 80%. These two patients were retreated with balloon dilatation. None of the patients showed neurological deterioration or new abnormalities at magnetic resonance tomography examination. Neither VA occlusion nor restenosis of the contralateral VA negatively affected the clinical outcome. An in-stent restenosis was developed by more female than male patients.VA origin stenting with the Pharos stent device is an effective treatment of stenosis. The good clinical results compared to the high restenosis rates have to be examined in further studies. Pin particular, it has to be determined whether the Pharos stent allows the vessel time for collateralization, whether double antiplatelet treatment prevents recurrent cerebrovascular events or whether merely the low restenosis degree is causative for the clinical outcome.
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.