ArticlePostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2013
Comparison of short-term outcomes after carotid artery stenting according to different stent designs.
Article in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 2013. 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.
- Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Demographic and Technical Risk Factors of 30-Day Stroke, Myocardial Infarction, and/or Death in Standard- and High-Risk Patients Who Underwent Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting.Interventional neurology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the developed countries, stroke is the third most common cause of death. There are many data indicating that stents reduce the risk of embolism but there are few publications assessing whether different stent designs can influence the periprocedural complications.
aimTo determine the effects of open- and closed-cell stent designs on 1-month results of carotid artery stenting (CAS). MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study group consisted of 290 consecutive patients (216 men and 74 women, mean age 66.6 ±8.7 years). Neuroprotection with a distal protection device was used in all cases. The patients were divided into two groups: the open-cell stent group (n = 144) and the closed-cell stent group (n = 138). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) described as myocardial infarction, stroke and death within 1 month were recorded and analysed subsequently. Periprocedural hypotension and transient cerebral ischaemia at 1 month after the CAS procedure were also assessed.
resultsWe treated 290 carotid stenoses and stents were implanted in all patients. Fifteen patients (5.5%) were treated by staged CAS due to bilateral carotid artery disease. The technical success rate was 97.2%. There was no difference in the MACCE and transient cerebral ischaemia rate at 1 month between the two groups (p = 0.44 and p = 0.94, respectively). The incidence of ischaemic stroke was lower in the closed-cell stent group (2.77% vs. 0%; p = 0.04). The periprocedural rate of hypotension was higher in the closed-cell stent group (2.1% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.04).
conclusionsClosed-cell stents are associated with a low rate of ischaemic stroke. We think that closed-cell stents may be preferred in patients at high risk of embolism.
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.