ArticleAME case reports2025
Off-label use of intravascular lithotripsy in severely calcified carotid stenosis: a case series and literature review.
Article in AME case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Case Report: Intravascular lithotripsy combined with a new-generation 3-in-1 carotid stent for calcified carotid artery stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Severe extracranial carotid artery stenosis caused by heavily calcified coral reef plaque presents major limitations for endovascular therapy. The thickness and length of the calcification can increase the risk of technical failure, stent recoil, and restenosis. Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has been utilized to fragment calcium deposits in the intimal and medial layers of the vessel wall before stenting in the coronary and infra-inguinal arteries, resulting in a more pliable plaque and durable intraluminal gain. Our study is unique as it includes both internal and common carotid artery lesions, incorporates various clinical scenarios-including prior surgical interventions and complex ostial disease-and demonstrates technical success and short-term patency across all patients. It adds valuable data to the emerging body of evidence supporting IVL's off-label use in this context and highlights the need for prospective studies to further assess long-term outcomes. Case Description: In this report, we describe four patients treated with adjunct IVL of the internal or common carotid arteries before trans-carotid artery revascularization (TCAR). All four patients recovered without complications and showed excellent stent expansion and luminal gain. Conclusions: IVL could be a valuable adjunct in the treatment of severely calcified carotid artery stenosis, potentially reducing the risk of technical failure, stent recoil, and restenosis. Additional research is needed to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of IVL in the treatment of severely calcified carotid artery stenosis.
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.