ArticleSpringerPlus2014
Treatment outcomes of carotid artery stenting with two types of distal protection filter device.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2014. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Values and Underlying Mechanism Analysis of Serum miR-455-5p in Carotid Artery Stenosis.Journal of inflammation research · 2022Article
- Transcervical access, reversal of flow and mesh-covered stents: New options in the armamentarium of carotid artery stenting.World journal of cardiology · 2017Review
- Comparison of Flow Impairment during Carotid Artery Stenting Using Two Types of Eccentric Filter Embolic Protection Devices.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePreventing cerebral embolism from debris produced during carotid artery stenting (CAS) is important. This study compared the treatment outcomes of CAS using two types of filter-based embolic protection devices currently in use in Japan. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe assessed 121 consecutive cases of CAS performed with FilterWire EZ™ between July 2010 and November 2012 and 37 consecutive cases of CAS performed with the Spider FX™ between November 2012 and June 2013. A Carotid Wallstent™ was used in all cases. The incidence of positive lesions on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and stroke were compared between the groups.
resultsPostoperative DWI-positive lesions were observed in 38 (31.4%) and 14 (37.8%) patients in the FilterWire and Spider groups, respectively. In the FilterWire group, complications were transient ischemic attacks in 3 (2.5%) patients, cerebral infarction in 2 (1.7%) patients (1 patient each with minor and major stroke), and cerebral hemorrhage due to hyperperfusion syndrome in 1 (0.8%) patient. In the Spider group, except for cerebral infarction (minor stroke) in 1 (2.7%) patient, no complications were observed. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of complications between the groups.
conclusionFilterWire EZ and Spider FX are comparable in terms of treatment 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.