ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2016
Comparison of Flow Impairment during Carotid Artery Stenting Using Two Types of Eccentric Filter Embolic Protection Devices.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2016. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flow arrest during carotid artery stenting with a distal embolic protection device: A single-center experience and clinical implications.Journal of cerebrovascular and endovascular neurosurgery · 2024Article
- Histopathological Examination of a Symptomatic Carotid Web: A Case Report.NMC case report journal · 2024Article
- Safety and Risk Factors of Carotid Artery Stenting with Simple Distal Filter Protection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2024Article
- Transcervical access, reversal of flow and mesh-covered stents: New options in the armamentarium of carotid artery stenting.World journal of cardiology · 2017Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We investigated the angiographic findings and the clinical outcomes after carotid artery stenting (CAS) using two different, eccentric filter embolic protection devices (EPDs). Between July 2010 and August 2015, 175 CAS procedures were performed using a self-expandable closed-cell stent and a simple eccentric filter EPD (FilterWire EZ in 86 and Spider FX in 89 procedures). The angiographic findings (i.e., flow impairment and vasospasm) at the level of EPDs, neurologic events, and post-operative imaging results were compared between the FilterWire EZ and the Spider FX groups. The CAS was angiographically successful in all 175 procedures. However, the angiographs were obtained immediately after CAS-detected flow impairment in the distal internal carotid artery (ICA) in 11 (6.3%) and ICA spasms at the level of the EPD in 40 cases (22.9%). The incidence of these complications was higher with FilterWire EZ than Spider FX (ICA flow impairment of 10.5% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.03; vasospasm 30.2% vs. 15.7%, P = 0.03). There were nine neurologic events (5.1%); five patients were presented with transient ischemic attacks, three had minor strokes, and one had a major stroke. New MRI lesions were seen in 25 (29.1%) FilterWire-group and in 36 (40.4%) Spider-group patients. The neurologic events and new MRI lesions were not associated with the type of EPD used. Although the ICA flow impairment may result in neurologic events, there was no significant association between the FilterWire EZ and the Spider FX CAS with respect to the incidence of neurologic events by the prompt treatment such as catheter aspiration.
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.