ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2016
Simultaneous Bilateral Carotid Stenting for Symptomatic Bilateral High-Grade Carotid Stenosis: A Retrospective Clinical Investigation.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2016. 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.
- Staged approach to bilateral severe carotid stenosis: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in stroke · 2025Article
- Simultaneous bilateral angioplasty and stenting for carotid stenosis - a single center experience.Journal of medicine and life · 2022Article
- The Effect of Cerebrovascular Stenosis on -Peri-Hematoma Cerebral Perfusion and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Supratentorial Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This retrospective clinical investigation aimed to evaluate the short-term effectiveness and safety of SBCAS for symptomatic bilateral high-grade CS. MATERIAL AND METHODS From 2009 to 2014, 145 patients were recruited. Among them, 70 underwent SBCAS, and other 75 patients underwent SAMM and served as controls. The immediate postprocedural complications and postprocedural neurological evaluation, as well as restenosis at 6-month and 1-year follow-ups in the SBCAS group are reported. Additionally, baseline risk factors for ischemic stroke, adverse effects of drugs, and outcomes at 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year follow-ups were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS Our data did not reveal significant differences between the 2 groups in baseline risk factors for ischemic stroke. In the SBCAS group, both HPS (5.7%) and HD (40%) occurred, but they were not very severe, and no patients had postprocedural neurological deficit. Moreover, restenosis only occurred in 3 patients at 3 stent placement sites (4.3%) at 1-year follow-up. Adverse effects of drugs did not occur in SBCAS group, but adverse effects of Bayer aspirin and Lipitor occurred in 4 patients (5.4%) and 18 patients (24.3%), respectively, at 6-month follow-up in the control group. Furthermore, there were significant differences in outcomes between the 2 groups at 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year follow-ups, in that NIHSS, CS ratio, and incidence of endpoint events, as well as 1-year cumulative probability of endpoint events, were all lower in the SBCAS group than in the control group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Compared to SAMM, we found that SBCAS was more effective and safer for symptomatic bilateral high-grade CS.
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.