ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Short- and Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Self-Expandable Leo Stents Used Alone or with Coiling for Ruptured and Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- LEO or LEO baby within enterprise overlapping stents combined with coil embolization treatment for ruptured vertebrobasilar artery dissecting aneurysms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Safety and effectiveness of LEO stents for dual stent-assisted embolization combined with IA and IV intra-procedural infusion of tirofiban in the treatment of wide-necked intracranial bifurcation aneurysms.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Flow diversion effect of the leo braided stent for aneurysms in the posterior and distal anterior circulations: A multicenter cohort study.Frontiers in neurology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the efficacy and safety of the Leo stent used alone or with coiling to treat complex intracranial aneurysms (IAs) not eligible for simple or balloon-assisted coiling, this single-center retrospective study included consecutive adults with ruptured or unruptured IAs treated in 2011-2018 by stenting with or without coiling. The indication for stenting was IA complexity precluding simple or balloon-assisted coiling. Extensive data on the patients, IAs, antiplatelet treatments, procedures, and outcomes over the first 36 months were collected. Risk factors for early complications (univariate analysis) and delayed ischemia (multivariate analysis) were sought. We include 64 patients with 66 IAs. The procedural success rate was 65/66 (98.5%). Obliteration was Raymond Roy class I or II for 85% of IAs. Six patients died including four of the 12 patients presenting with subarachnoid hemorrhage, which was the only significant risk factor for early major complications. At 1 month, 45/64 (69%) had no disabilities. No rebleeding was reported. Ischemia was detected by routine MRI in 20 (35%) of the 57 patients with long-term data and was asymptomatic in 14. The stent-within-a-stent configuration was the only independent risk factor for ischemia. The Leo stent used alone or with coils to manage challenging IAs was associated with a high procedural success rate and complete or nearly complete IA obliteration of 85% of IAs. The high frequency of ischemia is ascribable to our use of routine serial MRI. In patients with bleeding, the Leo stent was associated with an excess risk of early, major, intracranial complications, as compared to patients without bleeding. Long-term follow-up was marked by the occurrence of ischemic events in the vascular territory of the stent, mostly silent.
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.