FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2024806075> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2024806075 endingPage "256" @default.
• W2024806075 startingPage "251" @default.
• W2024806075 abstract "ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to review our experience with embolic protection devices (EPDs) during carotid artery stenting (CAS). Specifically, we aimed to verify their clinical effectiveness and to compare clinical outcomes between specific devices and types of EPDs.MethodsThe CAS databases at four participating centers were reviewed. Adverse events were defined as death, stroke (>24 hours), or transient ischemic attack (TIA) (<24 hours). We compared the risk of procedural and 30-day events between patients treated with and without an EPD. We also compared these risks between different EPDs and between the different types of EPDs.ResultsA total of 3160 CAS procedures using nine EPDs were analyzed. The risk of a procedural adverse event was 0.9% in protected and 2.3% in unprotected procedures (P = .12). Compared with the most frequently used device (FilterWire, Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass), there was no significant difference in the risk of procedural adverse events for any of the other EPDs. There was, however, an increased risk of 30-day adverse events with the Accunet (Abbott Vascular, Redwood, Calif) filter compared with the FilterWire (relative risk [RR] 2.67, confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 5.04, P = .005). Pairwise comparison of proximal occlusion balloons to filters, distal occlusion balloons to filters, and proximal to distal occlusion balloons revealed no significant difference in the risk of procedural or 30-day adverse events. There was no significant difference in risk of procedural events between eccentric and concentric filters, however, the relative risk of eccentric compared with concentric filters at 30 days was 0.59 (unadjusted, CI 0.38 to 0.92, P = .04). This difference was still apparent after adjustment for risk factors (RR 0.61, CI 0.39 to 0.95, P = .06), but not after adjustment for risk factors and stent-type [(open-cell vs closed-cell) RR 0.76, CI 0.47 to 1.22, P = .51].ConclusionThe use of EPDs is associated with a low risk of procedural adverse events. We were unable to detect significant differences in risks of procedural adverse events between different devices or types of devices. We speculate that the observed differences seen at 30 days are largely attributable to differences in stent-type used. The goal of this study was to review our experience with embolic protection devices (EPDs) during carotid artery stenting (CAS). Specifically, we aimed to verify their clinical effectiveness and to compare clinical outcomes between specific devices and types of EPDs. The CAS databases at four participating centers were reviewed. Adverse events were defined as death, stroke (>24 hours), or transient ischemic attack (TIA) (<24 hours). We compared the risk of procedural and 30-day events between patients treated with and without an EPD. We also compared these risks between different EPDs and between the different types of EPDs. A total of 3160 CAS procedures using nine EPDs were analyzed. The risk of a procedural adverse event was 0.9% in protected and 2.3% in unprotected procedures (P = .12). Compared with the most frequently used device (FilterWire, Boston Scientific, Natick, Mass), there was no significant difference in the risk of procedural adverse events for any of the other EPDs. There was, however, an increased risk of 30-day adverse events with the Accunet (Abbott Vascular, Redwood, Calif) filter compared with the FilterWire (relative risk [RR] 2.67, confidence interval [CI] 1.41 to 5.04, P = .005). Pairwise comparison of proximal occlusion balloons to filters, distal occlusion balloons to filters, and proximal to distal occlusion balloons revealed no significant difference in the risk of procedural or 30-day adverse events. There was no significant difference in risk of procedural events between eccentric and concentric filters, however, the relative risk of eccentric compared with concentric filters at 30 days was 0.59 (unadjusted, CI 0.38 to 0.92, P = .04). This difference was still apparent after adjustment for risk factors (RR 0.61, CI 0.39 to 0.95, P = .06), but not after adjustment for risk factors and stent-type [(open-cell vs closed-cell) RR 0.76, CI 0.47 to 1.22, P = .51]. The use of EPDs is associated with a low risk of procedural adverse events. We were unable to detect significant differences in risks of procedural adverse events between different devices or types of devices. We speculate that the observed differences seen at 30 days are largely attributable to differences in stent-type used." @default.
• W2024806075 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2024806075 creator A5009544053 @default.
• W2024806075 creator A5013908509 @default.
• W2024806075 creator A5018862737 @default.
• W2024806075 creator A5021301102 @default.
• W2024806075 creator A5025314578 @default.
• W2024806075 creator A5047565372 @default.
• W2024806075 creator A5057279603 @default.
• W2024806075 creator A5081797241 @default.
• W2024806075 date "2007-08-01" @default.
• W2024806075 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2024806075 title "The type of embolic protection does not influence the outcome in carotid artery stenting" @default.
• W2024806075 cites W154941835 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W1557604963 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W1965652425 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2019722360 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2022007838 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2036301547 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2038169486 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2038398687 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2076513638 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2105663338 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2118244653 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2118411780 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2132385924 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2139799421 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2140683879 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2151347844 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2154316676 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2154447272 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2169527012 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W2989695990 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W4252938795 @default.
• W2024806075 cites W86545412 @default.
• W2024806075 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2007.04.053" @default.
• W2024806075 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17664102" @default.
• W2024806075 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2024806075 type Work @default.
• W2024806075 sameAs 2024806075 @default.
• W2024806075 citedByCount "68" @default.
• W2024806075 countsByYear W20248060752012 @default.
• W2024806075 countsByYear W20248060752013 @default.
• W2024806075 countsByYear W20248060752014 @default.
• W2024806075 countsByYear W20248060752017 @default.
• W2024806075 countsByYear W20248060752018 @default.
• W2024806075 countsByYear W20248060752019 @default.
• W2024806075 countsByYear W20248060752020 @default.
• W2024806075 countsByYear W20248060752022 @default.
• W2024806075 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2024806075 hasAuthorship W2024806075A5009544053 @default.
• W2024806075 hasAuthorship W2024806075A5013908509 @default.
• W2024806075 hasAuthorship W2024806075A5018862737 @default.
• W2024806075 hasAuthorship W2024806075A5021301102 @default.
• W2024806075 hasAuthorship W2024806075A5025314578 @default.
• W2024806075 hasAuthorship W2024806075A5047565372 @default.
• W2024806075 hasAuthorship W2024806075A5057279603 @default.
• W2024806075 hasAuthorship W2024806075A5081797241 @default.
• W2024806075 hasBestOaLocation W20248060751 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C197934379 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C2776268601 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C2778333808 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C2779169563 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C2780645631 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C2781068581 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C2987047532 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C42219234 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConcept C82789193 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C126322002 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C127413603 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C141071460 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C197934379 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C2776268601 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C2778333808 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C2779169563 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C2780645631 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C2781068581 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C2987047532 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C42219234 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C44249647 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C71924100 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C78519656 @default.
• W2024806075 hasConceptScore W2024806075C82789193 @default.
• W2024806075 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2024806075 hasLocation W20248060751 @default.
• W2024806075 hasLocation W20248060752 @default.
• W2024806075 hasOpenAccess W2024806075 @default.
• W2024806075 hasPrimaryLocation W20248060751 @default.
• W2024806075 hasRelatedWork W2053117040 @default.
• W2024806075 hasRelatedWork W2092530841 @default.
• W2024806075 hasRelatedWork W2108739920 @default.
• W2024806075 hasRelatedWork W2127467921 @default.

• next