ArticleInterventional neurology2016
Safety Outcomes Using a Proximal Protection Device in Carotid Stenting of Long Carotid Stenoses.
Article in Interventional neurology, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hybrid surgery versus endovascular intervention for patients with chronic internal carotid artery occlusion: A single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Imaging Identification and Prognosis of the Distal Internal Carotid Artery With Near and Complete Occlusion After Recanalization.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmbolic protection devices can prevent atherosclerotic emboli during carotid stenting. Newer proximal protection devices reverse flow in the internal carotid artery (ICA), leading to reduction in perioperative microemboli. The risk of stroke is high for carotid stenting of ICA lesions with a length >10 mm and/or angiographic string sign.
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the safety outcomes of proximal embolic protection device usage in this high-risk group.
methodsThis is a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent carotid stenting procedures with proximal embolic protection devices at a tertiary care center. High-risk features for adverse events with carotid stenting were identified. Peri- and postprocedural outcomes were recorded. We further compared outcomes in patients with a carotid stenosis length >10 mm to those with shorter stenosis.
resultsFrom January 2011 to December 2014, we included 27 patients; 96.3% were symptomatic and 3.7% were asymptomatic. There was a stent placement technical success rate of 100%. No major stroke or coronary events were recorded. One minor stroke event developed in one patient. A carotid lesion length >10 mm and/or angiographic string sign was noted in 21/27 patients, with an average lesion length of 14.4 mm. One patient (4.8%) in this group developed a minor stroke event. Neither a coronary nor a major stroke event was recorded in this group. There was no significant difference in the complication rate between the long lesion and the control group.
conclusionIn our patient cohort, it was found that a proximal embolic protection device is safe for patients with carotid stenosis, including those with a carotid lesion length >10 mm and/or angiographic string sign.
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.