ArticleJournal of neurointerventional surgery2024
Comparative analysis of long term effectiveness of Neuroform Atlas stent versus low profile visualized intraluminal stent/Woven EndoBridge devices in treatment of wide necked intracranial aneurysms.
Article in Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 2024. 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.
- Safety and Efficacy of the Neuroform Atlas Stent for Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Pooled it
- Endovascular treatment of intracranial internal carotid artery bifurcation region aneurysms.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the outcomes of wide necked aneurysms (WNA) treated with the Neuroform Atlas with those treated with the low profile visualized intraluminal stent (LVIS) or the Woven EndoBridge (WEB).
methodsObjective, prospectively collected, core laboratory adjudicated data from published trials for the Neuroform Atlas, LVIS, and WEB devices were reviewed. ATLAS (Safety and Effectiveness of the Treatment of Wide Neck, Saccular Intracranial Aneurysms With the Neuroform Atlas Stent System) study patients were included if they met other studies' inclusion criteria. Outcomes included (1) primary effectiveness (complete aneurysmal occlusion without retreatment/>50% parent vessel stenosis), (2) primary safety, (3) complete aneurysmal occlusion, and (4) retreatment rates (outcomes evaluated at the 12 month follow-up). Matching adjusted indirect comparison analysis was used to compare outcomes.
resultsAnalytical samples included 141 ATLAS subjects meeting WEB-IT (Woven EndoBridge Intrasaccular Therapy Study) criteria (ATLAS/WEB-IT) and 241 meeting LVIS (Pivotal Study of the Low Profile Visualized Intraluminal Support) criteria (ATLAS/LVIS). ATLAS/WEB-IT exhibited significantly higher rates of primary effectiveness and complete occlusion versus WEB (86.6% vs 53.9 %, P<0.0001, and 90.3% vs 53.9%, P<0.0001, respectively). For LVIS, there was no significant differences in primary effectiveness rates between ATLAS and LVIS (84.2% vs 77.7%, respectively, P=0.12). However, ATLAS/LVIS had a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving complete occlusion than LVIS (88.1 vs 79.1, P=0.03). Retreatment rates and primary safety outcomes were not significantly different (P>0.05) for the Atlas versus other devices except for a lower retreatment rate for ATLAS/WEB-IT versus WEB-IT (2.4% vs 9.8%, P=0.01).
conclusionThe Neuroform Atlas provided higher occlusion rates and similar retreatment rates in comparable datasets compared with LVIS and WEB devices when treating WNA.
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.