| Title |
Incidence of New Ischaemic Brain Lesions After Carotid Artery Stenting with the Micromesh Roadsaver Carotid Artery Stent: A Prospective Single-Centre Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00270-016-1454-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Antonella Ruffino, Riccardo Faletti, Laura Bergamasco, Paolo Fonio, Dorico Righi |
| Abstract |
Several randomized trials of patients with carotid stenosis show increased adverse neurological events with stenting versus endarterectomy in the 30-day post-procedure. This study examines the incidence of new ischaemic lesions in patients treated in our centre using the new Roadsaver stent. Between September 2015 and January 2016, 23 consecutive patients (age 74.3 ± 7.3 years, 17.4 % female) underwent carotid artery stenting with the Roadsaver stent, a nitinol double-layer micromesh device. A distal protection device was used in all cases. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was performed 24 h before, and 24 h and 30 days after the procedure. The 24-h post-procedure imaging showed 15 new ipsilateral ischaemic lesions in 7 (30.4 %) patients: median volume 0.076 cm(3) (interquartile range 0.065-0.146 cm(3)). All lesions were asymptomatic. The 30-day imaging showed complete resolution of all lesions and no new ischaemic lesions. Follow-up clinical and ultrasound examinations at 30 days and 6 months recorded no adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events. Protected stenting with micromesh Roadsaver stent showed good safety and efficacy in the treatment of carotid stenosis, with a low incidence of delayed embolic events and new ipsilateral ischaemic brain lesions. These preliminary results are encouraging, but need to be confirmed with larger populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 47% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,993,054
of 25,494,370 outputs
Outputs from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#1,317
of 2,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,951
of 349,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#14
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,494,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,734 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.