Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30294473›Full record

ArticleStroke and vascular neurology2018

Procedural complexity independent of P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) values is associated with acute in situ thrombosis in Pipeline flow diversion of cerebral aneurysms.

Bowen Jiang, Matthew T Bender, Erick M Westbroek, Jessica K Campos, Li-Mei Lin, Risheng Xu, Rafael J Tamargo, Judy Huang, Geoffrey P Colby, Alexander L Coon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Verifynow P2YNeurology and therapy · 2022
    Article
  2. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Bowen JiangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Matthew T BenderDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Erick M WestbroekDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jessica K CamposDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Li-Mei LinDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, California, USA.
Risheng XuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Rafael J TamargoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Judy HuangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Geoffrey P ColbyDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Alexander L CoonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute in situ thrombosis is an ischaemic phenomenon during Pipeline embolisation device (PED) procedures with potentially high morbidity and mortality. There is controversy regarding the role of platelet function testing with P2Y12 assay as a predictor of intraprocedural thromboembolic events. There is limited knowledge on whether procedural complexity influences these events.

methodsData were collected retrospectively on 742 consecutive PED cases at a single institution. Patients with intraprocedural acute thrombosis were compared with patients without these events.

resultsA cohort of 37 PED cases with acute in situ thrombosis (mean age 53.8 years, mean aneurysm size 8.4 mm) was matched with a cohort of 705 PED cases without intraprocedural thromboembolic events (mean age 56.4 years, mean aneurysm size 6.9 mm). All patients with in situ thrombosis received intra-arterial and/or intravenous abciximab. The two groups were evenly matched in patient demographics, previous treatment/subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and aneurysm location. There was no statistical difference in postprocedural P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) values between the two groups, with a mean of 156 in the in situ thrombosis group vs 148 in the control group (p=0.5894). Presence of cervical carotid tortuosity, high cavernous internal carotid artery grade, need for multiple PED and vasospasm were not significantly different between the two groups. The in situ thrombosis group had statistically significant longer fluoroscopy time (60.4 vs 38.4 min, p<0.0001), higher radiation exposure (3476 vs 2160 mGy, p<0.0001), higher rates of adjunctive coiling (24.3% vs 8.37%, p=0.0010) and higher utilisation of balloon angioplasty (37.8% vs 12.2%, p<0.0001). Clinically, the in situ thrombosis cohort had higher incidence of major and minor stroke, intracerebral haemorrhage and length of stay.

conclusionsPredictors of procedural complexity (higher radiation exposure, longer fluoroscopy time, adjunctive coiling and need for balloon angioplasty) are associated with acute thrombotic events during PED placement, independent of PRU values.

Indexed as

Embolic Protection DevicesPlatelet Function TestsBlood PlateletsDatabases, FactualEndovascular ProceduresFemaleHumansIntracranial AneurysmMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProsthesis DesignReceptors, Purinergic P2Y12Retrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsP2RY12 protein, humanReceptors, Purinergic P2Y12abciximabaneurysmendovascularflow diversionpipeline embolization device

Identifiers

PMID30294473
PMCPMC6169609
OpenAlexW2802037190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.