Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25953614›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2015

Comparison of dual protection and distal filter protection as a distal embolic protection method during carotid artery stenting: a single-center carotid artery stenting experience.

Yosuke Kajihara, Shigeyuki Sakamoto, Yoshihiro Kiura, Kazutoshi Mukada, Takahiro Chaki, Shiro Kajihara, Kaoru Kurisu

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Forearm access for carotid artery stenting using the dual protection of flow reversal and distal filter: Trans-forearm dual protection technique.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Mid-term and late results of endovascular treatment for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis under proximal protection.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021
    Article
  4. Safety of carotid artery stenting for elderly patients with cervical carotid artery stenosis.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yosuke KajiharaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Itsukaichi Memorial Hospital, 1-95 Kurashige, Saeki-ku, Hiroshima, 731-5156, Japan, yosukekajihara@yahoo.co.jp.
Shigeyuki Sakamoto
Yoshihiro Kiura
Kazutoshi Mukada
Takahiro Chaki
Shiro Kajihara
Kaoru Kurisu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are several protection methods used to prevent distal embolism during carotid artery stenting (CAS). The aim of this study was to compare the dual protection method (proximal balloon and distal filter protection) with the distal filter protection during CAS performed at a single center. Between April 2008 and November 2013, 78 consecutive patients with internal carotid artery stenosis were treated with CAS at Istukaichi Memorial Hospital. Twenty-four consecutive patients were treated with CAS using distal filter protection (distal filter protection group), and 54 consecutive patients were treated with CAS using dual protection with a proximal balloon and distal filter protection (dual protection group). We examined the hyperintensity lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and perioperative complications after CAS. All stenotic lesions were successfully dilated. DWI showed hyperintensity lesions among 54.2 % (13/24 patients) in the distal filter protection group and in 27.8 % (15/54 patients) in the dual protection group (p = 0.024). The average number of hyperintensity lesions on DWI was 1.75 (range, 0 to 6) in the distal filter protection group and 0.59 (range, 0 to 5) in the dual protection group (p = 0.0087). Postprocedural persistent ischemic complications occurred in 4.2 % (1/24 patients) in the distal filter protection group and 3.7 % (2/54 patients) in the dual protection group (p = 0.67). In this study, the dual protection method reduced the number of hyperintensity lesions seen on DWI when compared with the distal filter protection method when used for distal embolic protection during CAS.

Indexed as

StentsAgedAged, 80 and overAngiography, Digital SubtractionAngioplasty, BalloonBrain IschemiaCarotid ArteriesCarotid StenosisCatheterizationCerebral AngiographyDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleFiltrationHumansIntracranial EmbolismIntraoperative ComplicationsPlatelet Aggregation Inhibitors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.