Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31594435›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2020

Two- to five-year follow-up of 78 patients after treatment with the Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device.

Hannes Luecking, Arnd Doerfler, Philipp Goelitz, Philip Hoelter, Tobias Engelhorn, Stefan Lang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Flow redirection endoluminal device (FRED) for treatment of intracranial aneurysms: A systematic review.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Long-term results and comparison of flow re-direction endoluminal device and pipeline embolization device in endovascular treatment of intracranial carotid aneurysms.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Hannes LueckingDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3935-0003
Arnd DoerflerDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Philipp GoelitzDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Philip HoelterDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9768-9630
Tobias EngelhornDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Stefan LangDepartment of Neuroradiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeFlow-diverter stents are well-established for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device differs from other flow-diverter stents by its dual-layer design and has proved equality to other devices in numerous short-term surveys. However, follow-up data covering substantially more than one year are still limited for this device. We present our long-term experience with Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device. MATERIALS AND

methodsSeventy-eight patients harboring distal internal carotid artery (91%) or vertebrobasilar (9%) cerebral aneurysms treated with Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device with or without adjunctive coiling met the inclusion criteria. All cases were evaluated for aneurysm occlusion (according to Modified Raymond Roy Classification, MRRC), for flow-diverter stents patency and configuration and for procedure- and device-related morbidity and mortality.

resultsMean follow-up interval was 36.9 ± 9.5 months (<30 months: n = 18; 31-42 months: n = 31; >42 months: n = 24). Total and subtotal aneurysm occlusion after six months was assessed in 92.0% (MRRC

conclusionsOur long-term data covering two to five years after flow diversion confirm that Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device is a safe and effective device for the treatment of cerebral aneurysms with progressive high aneurysm occlusion rates; recurrence rates were very low. Overall device-related morbidity was low and was not observed later than six months after intervention.

Indexed as

StentsAdultAgedCarotid Artery DiseasesCerebral AngiographyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntracranial AneurysmMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationTreatment OutcomeVertebrobasilar InsufficiencyCerebral aneurysmflow diversionFlow Redirection Endoluminal Device

Identifiers

PMID31594435
PMCPMC6998004

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.