Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: The use of distal filter protection alone is associated with a high risk of ischemic complications when vulnerable carotid stenosis is treated by carotid artery stenting (CAS). Double balloon protection, a combination of distal balloon protection and proximal balloon occlusion, can be utilized. We assessed the outcome and complications of the double balloon protection method for vulnerable carotid stenosis.
Methods: Among 130 patients who underwent CAS from 2009 to 2014, we enrolled the following patients: those whose target lesion was vulnerable as evaluated by MRI, i.e., a signal ratio of plaque to posterior cervical muscle on T1-weighted images before CAS of ≥1.5, and those who underwent diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) studies within 48 h after the procedure. Ninety patients were enrolled. We investigated DWI findings of the double balloon protection group compared with those of the simple distal balloon protection and distal filter protection groups.
Results: Sixty-four patients (71 %) underwent double balloon protection, 15 patients (17 %) simple distal balloon protection, and 11 patients (12 %) distal filter protection. Symptomatic embolic complications and new lesions on DWI after CAS were significantly less common in patients undergoing double balloon protection compared to distal balloon protection or distal filter protection (0 % vs. 20 %, 9 %, P < 0.01, and 30 % vs. 67 %, 82 %, P < 0.01, respectively). Logistic regression analysis also identified the odds ratio of double balloon protection for new lesions on DWI after CAS of 0.23 (95 % confidence interval: 0.07-0.70, P < 0.01) compared to simple distal protections.
Conclusions: In the patients who underwent CAS for vulnerable carotid stenosis, double balloon protection was an independent significant factor associated with a reduction in the risk of new lesions on DWI after the procedure compared to conventional distal protections.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-016-2816-2 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!