ArticleInterventional neurology2018
Carotid Revascularization with and without the Use of an Embolic Protection Device: A Single-Center Experience from Pakistan.
Article in Interventional neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the safety and clinical efficacy of carotid artery stenting with and without an embolic protection device (EPD) in both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease cases.
methodsRetrospective data of 55 symptomatic (≥50% occlusion by digital subtraction angiography [DSA], ≥70% by ultrasound, computed tomography angiography [CTA], and magnetic resonance angiography [MRA]) and asymptomatic (≥60% by DSA, ≥70% by ultrasound, ≥80% by CTA and MRA) carotid disease cases undergoing carotid stenting/angioplasty revascularization from February 2014 to October 2017 was reviewed. All symptomatic patients either experienced recurrent transient ischemic attacks or one or more stroke attacks. An EPD protocol was designed for its selective use based on plaque morphologies and working diameters. The primary end points at 30 days of follow-up were a periprocedural incidence of any stroke, myocardial infarction or death, and ipsilateral stroke during the follow-up period.
resultsOf the 55 cases, 39 were males and 16 females; mean age was 64.8 years. Fifty-one patients (92.7%) were symptomatic, with a mean stenosis of 80.1%. EPD was used in only 11 cases (20%). Minor stroke rate during the first 30 postoperative days was 1.8% (1 case) with EPD; no myocardial infarction or mortality. No stroke occurred during the median 1.5 years' follow-up.
conclusionBased on our single-center experience and findings of a relatively small sample size, carotid revascularization with stenting and angioplasty without EPD in experienced hands was found to be safe and efficacious. In addition, it proves cost-effective for patients by limiting the use of unnecessary disposables. These results are comparable to those reported in major trials and are well within the complication thresholds suggested in current guidelines. These results also show promise and illustrate the need for a larger, randomized controlled trial in order to thoroughly address this aspect of carotid revascularization.
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.