Trial reportEuropean radiology2013
Carotid artery stenting in difficult aortic arch anatomy with or without a new dedicated guiding catheter: preliminary experience.
Trial report in European radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bending stiffness and trackability of carotid stent delivery systems: Bench-top insights for neurointerventional practice.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
- Anatomical Considerations for Endovascular Intervention for Extracranial Carotid Disease: A Review of the Literature and Recommended Guidelines.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Effect of aortic arch type on technical indicators in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting.The Journal of international medical research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate carotid artery stenting (CAS) procedures with or without a new dedicated guiding catheter in anatomically challenging aortic arches in our experience.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 172 procedures of CAS performed from December 2006 to October 2011 in 159 consecutive patients (100 men, mean age 78 years): 15 patients had type III aortic arch, 13 had a bovine aortic arch, 6 had an acute angle at the origin of the left common carotid artery from the aortic arch, 2 had type III aortic arch with bovine aortic arch, and 1 had a bicarotid trunk with an aberrant right subclavian artery. In this group of difficult anatomy (37 cases), CAS was performed with (13 cases) or without (24 cases) a new dedicated guiding catheter.
resultsMean time of fluoroscopy (16 min vs. 18 min, P < 0.01), mean total procedural time (68 min vs. 83 min, P < 0.001), technical failure (0/13 vs. 3/24 cases, P = 0.01), clinical failure (0/13 vs. 4/21 cases, P = 0.02) and local complications (0/13 vs. 2/24 cases, P < 0.0001) were significantly lesser in the dedicated guiding catheter group.
conclusionsThe new dedicated guiding catheter may be more effective and less risky for CAS in anatomically challenging aortic arches. KEY POINTS: • Complex anatomy of the aortic arch is not rare • Endovascular carotid artery stenting (CAS) is more difficult when the anatomy is complex • A new dedicated guiding catheter may help CAS when the arch anatomy is complex • The new dedicated guiding catheter may be less risky in complex arches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23179523What 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.