ArticlePloS one2012
Carotid artery stenting: a single center "real world" experience.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Matrix metalloproteinase 9 level as an indicator for restenosis following cervical and intracranial angioplasty and stenting.Neural regeneration research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedAmann, Beatrice [corrected to Amann-Vest, Beatrice]
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous carotid artery stenting (CAS) became a widely used procedure in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. However its role compared to carotid endarterectomy (CAD) remains questioned. We analysed the safety of carotid artery stenting program of a prospective CAS register program of a tertiary teaching hospital.
methodBetween July 2003 and December 2010, 208 patients underwent CAS procedure. Baseline, procedural and follow-up data were prospectively collected. Primary peri-interventional outcome was defined as 30-day major adverse events (MAE), including death, stroke or myocardial infarction, and mid- to long-term follow-up outcome included ipsilateral stroke, myocardial infarction or death. Secondary outcome was restenosis rate ≥ 50% per lesion.
resultsUnilateral carotid artery interventions were performed in 186 patients. In 22 patients CAS was performed bilaterally as stages procedures. The 30-day MAE rate was 1.9% consisting of two contralateral strokes and two ipsilateral stroke. Mean clinically follow-up was 22 months. Mid- to long-term MAE was 8.1% with 6.3% (n = 13) deaths, 1.9% (n = 4) myocardial infarctions and 0.9% (n = 2) ipsilateral stroke. The restenosis rate ≥ 50% per lesion was 4.3% at a mean follow-up of 22 months. Target lesion revascularization was performed in one patient, because of restenosis at 9 months follow-up after first CAS.
conclusionImplementation of a carotid artery stenting program at a tertiary, teaching hospital is a safe method for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. The adverse event rate during mid-to-long-term follow-up suggests an appropriate patient selection.
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.