ArticleCVIR endovascular2018
Carotid artery stenting in a single center, single operator, single type of device and 15 years of follow-up.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2018. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Selection Criteria and Procedural Standardization for Carotid Artery Stenting-A Single Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Second- versus First-Generation Carotid Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRevascularization with carotid stent (CAS) is considered the therapeutic alternative to endarterectomy (CEA). However, its role compared to CEA remains questioned, mainly due of the heterogeneity of long-term results. The objective of this study was to report the efficacy and durability of CAS in terms of stroke prevention in a "real world experience".
methodThis was a single-center retrospective analysis of 344 patients treated with CAS between January 2001 and December 2015.The primary outcome of the trial was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during a periprocedural period or any stroke event over a 15-year follow-up. The secondary aim was to identify risk factors for 30-day complications, long-term neurological complications, and intra-stent restenosis.
resultsThe primary composite end point (any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period) was 2.3%. The use of an EPD was protective against major complications.Long-term follow-up was achieved in 294 patients (85,5%) with a median of 50 months (range 0-155 months). Fifty-six (16,3%) died within this period, most commonly of nonvascular causes (4 patients had stroke-related deaths). During the follow-up period, 8 strokes and 3 TIAs were diagnosed (3.2%).ISR determined by sequential ultrasound was assessed in 4.4% of the patients and remained asymptomatic in all but 2 patients (0.6%). All patients with restenosis underwent revascularization with balloon angioplasty.
conclusionThe long-term follow-up results of our study validate CAS as a safe and durable procedure with which to prevent ipsilateral stroke, with an acceptable rate of restenosis, recurrence and mortality.
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.