ArticleClinical neuroradiology2023
Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms Using a Microcatheter Protection.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStent protective or balloon remodeling techniques have enabled coil embolization of complexly configured aneurysms. Still, the utility of such methods may be limited in some small-caliber and/or inherently tortuous lesions. The present study was conducted to examine the efficacy of microcatheter protection (MCP) when applied in these circumstances.
methodsThis retrospective review included 432 patients with 452 intracranial aneurysms subjected to MCP between April 2001 and January 2021. All available medical records and radiologic data were analyzed, focusing on strategic, safety, and efficacy aspects of the procedures.
resultsIn a majority (255/452, 56.4%) of cases, MCP was applied throughout entire coiling procedures, as opposed to coil framing (137/452, 30.3%) or filling/finishing (60/452, 13.3%) only. Lesions of the middle cerebral artery (54.9%) predominated, followed by anterior (12.4%) and posterior (11.1%) communicating artery aneurysms. Stent protection was also used occasionally (46/452, 10.2%). Procedural morbidity was low (3/432, 0.7%), limited to symptomatic thromboembolism and procedural leakage, and there were no deaths. Occlusion was successfully achieved by MCP in 424 aneurysms (93.8%). During the follow-up period (mean, 43.4 ± 30.4 months), satisfactory occlusion was documented in 406 of 440 (92.3%) aneurysms.
conclusionMCP is feasible and safe for coil embolization of intracranial aneurysms, in conjunction with multicatheter, balloon, or stenting techniques. MCP may have merit in small-sized or tortuous lesions not amenable to balloon or stent usage, often eliminating the need for stenting altogether.
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.