ArticlePloS one2020
Patient reported long-term outcome after endovascular therapy of indirect dural carotid cavernous fistulas.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endovascular Treatment of Cavernous Sinus Dural Arteriovenous Fistulas. Institutional Series, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical neuroradiology · 2022Pooled it
- Clinical Profile and Management Outcomes among Patients with Carotid-Cavernous Fistula.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Clinical efficacy of endovascular treatment approach in patients with carotid cavernous fistula: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World neurosurgery: X · 2023Review
- Radiation Dose and Fluoroscopy Time of Endovascular Coil Embolization in Patients with Carotid Cavernous Fistulas.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatient-reported long-term follow-up after endovascular treatment of indirect carotid cavernous fistulas is important, but rarely addressed in literature. We report on this issue with a special focus on the patient's view and its impact on the indication evaluation process.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients (n = 33) with a minimum follow-up interval of at least 36 and up to 166 months after endovascular treatment of an indirect carotid cavernous fistula (Barrow B-D) at our institution (treated from 01/2003 to 06/2015). We determined treatment details including primary therapy success and complication rate and quote the patient's subjective perception of the long-term treatment success using a standardized interview form.
resultsAs a primary result the fistula was completely occluded in 25/33 cases (76%), while a downgrading was achieved in 8/33 (24%) of the cases. Secondary occlusion was observed in three out of eight patients (38%). In the long-term interview (response rate: 91%, median follow-up interval: 114 months) 87% of the patients reported high satisfaction with the long-term therapy result. Endovascular treatment achieved a sustainable relief from all eye-related symptoms in 89% and from pulsatile tinnitus in 57% of the cases.
conclusionsIn addition to good results in terms of angiographic and clinical cure, endovascular treatment is also perceived as beneficial by most of the patients. This is another important argument in favor of an endovascular treatment.
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.