Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28818824›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2017

Clinical Impact of Flat Panel Volume CT Angiography in Evaluating the Accurate Intraoperative Deployment of Flow-Diverter Stents.

F Clarençon, F Di Maria, J Gabrieli, E Shotar, V Degos, A Nouet, A Biondi, N-A Sourour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A technical note on intra-arterial cone-beam computed tomography for the evaluation of flow-diverter stents: Image quality differences between diluted and non-diluted contrast medium.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors.

F ClarençonFrom the Departments of Interventional Neuroradiology (F.C., J.G., E.S., N.-A.S.) fredclare5@msn.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6442-8239
F Di MariaDepartment of Interventional Neuroradiology (F.D.M.), Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0020-0438
J GabrieliFrom the Departments of Interventional Neuroradiology (F.C., J.G., E.S., N.-A.S.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6905-3627
E ShotarFrom the Departments of Interventional Neuroradiology (F.C., J.G., E.S., N.-A.S.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8712-8431
V DegosAnesthesiology (V.D.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6540-5725
A NouetNeurosurgery (A.N.), Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. Paris France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3810-3438
A BiondiDepartment of Neuroradiology and Endovascular Therapy (A.B.), Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3185-0740
N-A SourourFrom the Departments of Interventional Neuroradiology (F.C., J.G., E.S., N.-A.S.).ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5935-5100

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe deployment of flow-diverter stents may be difficult to analyse on regular DSA. The purpose of our study was to investigate the clinical impact of stent-dedicated flat panel volume CT angiography to evaluate intraoperatively the satisfactory deployment of flow-diverter stents. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom January 2009 to April 2015, 83 consecutive patients (mean age, 51 years; 62 women) were treated in our institution with flow-diverter stents. Eighty-seven aneurysms (82 unruptured, 5 ruptured; 77 anterior, 10 posterior circulation) were treated in these 83 patients (4 patients had 2 aneurysms, both treated by means of flow-diverter stents). One patient was treated for a traumatic carotid cavernous fistula. In 80% of the cases (68/85) a flat panel volume CT angiography was performed in the angiographic suite just after the flow-diverter stent deployment. Stent visualization was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. The clinical impact of stent malapposition was evaluated.

resultsFlow-diverter stent visualization was satisfactory in 73.5% of the cases. In 2 cases (2.9%) the flat panel volume CT angiography prompted the operator to perform an additional intrastent angioplasty for a condition that was previously underestimated. Four patients (4.7%) experienced acute thromboembolic complications; 3 others had delayed thromboembolic complications. Only 1 of these patients had thromboembolic complications (acute or delayed) related to stent misdeployment, which was easily managed intraoperatively with no clinical consequence.

conclusionsFlat panel volume CT angiography is an interesting tool to depict flow-diverter stent misdeployment and may encourage the operator to perform intrastent angioplasty (2.9% of the cases in our experience) to reduce the risks of thromboembolic complications.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCerebral AngiographyComputed Tomography AngiographyEndovascular ProceduresFemaleHumansIntracranial AneurysmMaleMiddle AgedNeuroimagingRetrospective StudiesStents

Identifiers

PMID28818824
PMCPMC7963638

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.