ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2016
Perioperative and follow-up results in carotid artery stenting with contralateral carotid occlusion.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2016. 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.
- The First Report on Strategic Management of Bilateral Carotid Artery Stenosis: Exploring Surgical Challenges and Decision-Making.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Correlation between high perfusion syndrome and stent restenosis after stent implantation.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeContralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) increases the risk of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We determined the outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), an alternative to CEA, in the setting of CCO through an independent analysis of imaging and clinical outcome. MATERIALS AND
methodsMedical records of 26 consecutive patients with CCO who underwent CAS by a single operator using the same procedural protocol (with distal protection and closed-cell stents) were retrospectively evaluated. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores before and after CAS, periprocedural complications, and the restenosis rate were analyzed by independent stroke neurologists who were not involved in the care of the patients.
resultsThe median mRS score for the 26 patients was 1 (range 0-5) before and after CAS. All of the patients underwent clinical and imaging follow-up (mean 19.5 ± 14.3 and 11.6 ± 11.2 months, respectively). Thirty-day mortality/permanent morbidity rates were 0 %. One patient had hyperperfusion syndrome and was managed medically without sequelae; however, he had stent occlusion after 30 days, resulting in a decline in his mRS from 4 (preprocedure) to 5. Otherwise, there was no decline in mRS during the post-discharge follow-up.
conclusionAccording to an independent analysis of this single-operator series, CAS is safe and effective for the treatment of patients with CCO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27230906What 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.