ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019
Comparison of endovascular treatment for middle cerebral artery aneurysm with a low-profile visualized intraluminal support stent or pipeline embolization device.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Safety and Efficacy of Flow Diversion versus Conventional Endovascular Treatment for Intracranial Aneurysms: A Meta-analysis of Real-world Cohort Studies from the Past 10 Years.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Pooled it
- Appraisal of the Flow Diversion Effect Provided by Braided Intracranial Stents.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Pipeline embolization of proximal middle cerebral artery aneurysms: A multicenter cohort study.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2022Article
- Hemodynamic analysis for endovascular treatment in small unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a matched comparison study of flow diverter versus LVIS.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2021Article
- Cerebral revascularization for the management of complex middle cerebral artery aneurysm: A case series.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of low-profile visualized intraluminal support (LVIS) stent and the pipeline embolization device (PED) for middle cerebral artery (MCA) aneurysm treatment. Data of patients with MCA aneurysms who received endovascular treatment with LVIS stent or PED added to the hospital's database between August 2016 and March 2018 were retrospectively collected, and the clinical results and angiographic outcomes were evaluated. A total of 43 patients were included in the study, of whom 23 received LVIS stents and 20 received PED. The rate of complete occlusion was similar in the two groups at 6 months post-treatment (90.9 vs. 88.9%; P=0.832). Peri-operative complications were more frequent in the PED group; however, the LVIS group had more ischemic symptoms during the long-term follow-up. A larger aneurysm size (P=0.032) was associated with recanalization in the two groups. In conclusion, the LVIS stent and PED had acceptable rates of complete occlusion and aneurysm size was an independent predictor for recanalization. LVIS is more effective during the peri-operative period, while PED appears to have higher long-term safety.
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.