ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2025
Proximal Protection Devices for Carotid Artery Stent Placement: A Benchtop Assessment of Flow Reversal Performance.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeProximal protection devices, such as TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR), aim to yield better outcomes in carotid artery stent placement (CAS) than distal protection devices by preventing plaque embolization to the brain. However, transfemoral catheters may not fully reverse flow from the external carotid artery (ECA) to the ICA. We assess a new balloon-sheath device, Femoral Flow Reversal Access for Carotid Artery Stent placement (FFRACAS), for this purpose. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe FFRACAS prototype (inner diameter [ID] = 0.117 inches; L = 80 cm) was compared with TCAR (ID = 0.104 inches, L = 30 cm) and Mo.Ma (ID = 0.083 inches, L = 90 cm) in a pulsatile flow model with blood simulant at 800 mL/min. Mo.Ma was used according to labeled instructions, with both CCA and ECA balloon inflation, without CCA-femoral vein shunt placement, and in an off-label fashion with single balloon occlusion in the CCA and shunt. Flow rates of the ICA, ECA, and shunt, when applicable, were monitored during CAS stages: CCA flow arrest, shunt activation, and stent delivery. Experiments were conducted under 2 ECA inflow conditions (-10 and -20 mL/min). Statistical comparison of ICA flow rates was conducted by using ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests.
resultsThe on-label use of Mo.Ma maintained retrograde ICA flow (-0.3 mL/min) throughout CAS. On shunt activation, TCAR and FFRACAS reversed ICA flow similarly under low ECA inflow (ICA = -5.10 mL/min versus -4.83 mL/min;
conclusionsFFRACAS presents a potential alternative to TCAR, achieving similar degrees of flow reversal from a transfemoral approach to that achieved with the transcarotid approach. The Mo.Ma system reliably prevents anterograde flow in ICA during CAS.
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.