ArticleThe neuroradiology journal2015
Inadvertent Detachment of a Retrievable Intracranial Stent: Review of Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience.
Article in The neuroradiology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endovascular treatment of patients with intracranial aneurysms: feasibility and successful employment of a new low profile visible intraluminal support (LVIS) EVO stent.The neuroradiology journal · 2020Observational
- Endovascular Stroke Interventions: Procedural Complications and Management.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2020Review
- Retrieval of Migrated Volume Coils Using Different Clot Retrievers in a Porcine Model.Clinical neuroradiology · 2018Article
- Solitaire stentectomy: 'deploy and engage' and 'loop and snare' techniques.BMJ case reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Few systematic surveys have dealt with the potential procedural risks associated with the use of retrievable intracranial stents [Solitaire Flow Restoration (Solitaire FR)], which have become effective tools for recanalizing acutely occluded cerebral arteries. The aim of this study was to present the real-world experiences of Solitaire-FR-related adverse events by reviewing the MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) as published on the United States Food and Drug Administration website. In total, 85 adverse events related to the use of the Solitaire FR stent were reported between March 2012 and October 2014. In 80 patients these adverse events were attributable to inadvertent detachment of the device. Thirteen of these 80 patients (16%) died after the procedure. Morbidity data were available in 62 patients, among whom 11 (18%) had suffered a procedure-related injury. Detachment occurred at the first, second, and third pass in nine (21%), 21 (49%), and 13 (30%) of the 43 patients for whom this information was available, respectively. Resistance was perceived by the physician during retrieval of the device in 12 patients, and lesion characteristics were noted in 13. A rescue maneuver was reported in 20 (25%) of the 80 patients in whom the adverse event was attributable to detachment of the device, resulting in flow reestablishment in 13 (65%). The risk of inadvertent detachment during stent retrieval cannot be overemphasized in real-world scenarios, and careful consideration of the "dos and don'ts" is essential for the achievement of a safe procedure.
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.