Trial reportClinical neuroradiology2021
Casper vs. Closed-Cell Stent : Carotid Artery Stenting Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Clinical neuroradiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nitinol double-layer stent versus closed single-layer stent: a systematic review.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of Restenosis Risk in Single-Layer versus Dual-Layer Carotid Stents: A Duplex Ultrasound Evaluation.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy of closed-cell stents with Casper stents during carotid angioplasty stenting (CAS).
methodsThis was a randomized superiority trial in which 88 patients were enrolled. The primary end points were the incidence, number, and size of new ischemic brain lesions after CAS under distal embolic protection devices (EPD). The secondary end points included stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) and myocardial infarction (MI). Ischemic brain lesions were assessed by a diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance image (DW-MRI). Neurological outcomes were evaluated by means of the National Institutes of Health scale score (NIHSS) and the modified Rankin scale (mRS).
resultsCompared with closed-cell stents (n = 47), Casper stents (n = 41), resulted in no significant reduction in the incidence (44.7% versus 39%, P = 0.592), number (1.3 ± 1.8 versus 0.9 ± 1.5, p = 0.444), and size (3.9 ± 5.8 mm versus 2.8 ± 4.1 mm, p = 0.353) of new ischemic brain lesions. The global rate of stroke/TIA/MI was (2/88, 2.3%). Two TIA occurred during the hospitalization period, one in each group (1/41, 2.4% vs 1/47, 2.1%). One patient of the Casper group had an asymptomatic in-stent thrombosis. One patient of the control group had a MI (1/47, 2.1%) after discharge.
conclusionThe Casper stents did not show superiority in the rate of incidence, number and size of new silent ischemic brain lesions detect by DW-MRI when compared to close cell stents during CAS under distal EPD.
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.