ArticleTrials2026
Two different distal protections on cerebral microembolization of vulnerable plaque during carotid artery stenting (CASH-ES): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04904250 (SpiderFX Versus Emboshield Nav6 Distal Protection on Cerebral Microembolization in Vulnerable Plaque During Carotid Artery Stenting), which is not on this 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.
SpiderFX Versus Emboshield Nav6 Distal Protection on Cerebral Microembolization in Vulnerable Plaque During Carotid Artery Stenting
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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCarotid artery stenting (CAS) is a widely used procedure for patients with high-risk carotid stenosis, particularly in the Chinese population. However, there are no randomized trials examining the comparative efficacy and safety of different embolic protection devices (EPDs) used during CAS. This study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of two newer-generation EPDs, Spider FX™ and Emboshield NAV6™, using a comprehensive approach that includes intraoperative monitoring, postoperative imaging, and clinical outcomes. Given the specific focus on a Chinese population, caution should be applied when generalizing findings to other ethnic groups.
methodsThis is a prospective, single-center, randomized, controlled, and blinded-endpoint trial designed to compare the performance of Spider FX™ and Emboshield NAV6™ in high-risk carotid stenosis patients undergoing CAS. A total of 172 patients will be enrolled, accounting for an estimated 20% dropout rate. The randomization will be performed in a 1:1 ratio between the two devices. The primary outcome is new ipsilateral ischemic lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) within 7 days after CAS. Secondary outcomes include the number, size, and location of new cerebral ischemic lesions on DWI, and the count of microembolic signals (MES) detected by TCCD monitoring during the procedure. Safety assessments will include procedural complications, myocardial infarction, and mortality within 7 days. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will provide crucial evidence on whether the Emboshield NAV6™ device offers superior distal embolic protection compared to the Spider FX™ in patients undergoing CAS. This could potentially guide clinicians in selecting the most effective EPD for high-risk carotid stenosis patients.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04904250 (URL: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ) Registered on May 27, 2021.
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.