Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 330

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Protected Carotid Stenting: Clinical Advantages and Complications of Embolic Protection Devices in 442 Consecutive Patients

Open access
Cremonesi, Alberto, Manetti, Raffaella, Setacci, Francesco, Setacci, Carlo, Castriota, Fausto·2003·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— Periprocedural embolization of debris during carotid stenting interventions may result in neurological deficit. This study was designed to evaluate in-hospital and 30-day adverse events in patients percutaneously treated for carotid artery disease with embolic protection devices. Methods— From 1999 to June 2002, a total of 442 consecutive patients underwent percutaneous angioplasty and/or stenting of the extracranial carotid artery. The endovascular procedure was conducted under embolic protection devices. Results— The percutaneous procedure was successful in 440 of 442 patients (99.5%). No periprocedural death occurred with any embolic protection device. All in-hospital stroke/death and 30-day ipsilateral stroke/death rate was 1.1%. The overall complication rate was 3.4%. Major adverse events included 1 major stroke (0.2%), 4 intracranial hemorrhages (0.9%), 1 carotid artery wall fissuration (0.2%), and 1 diffuse cardioembolism (0.2%). Minor adverse events included 4 minor strokes (0.9%) and 4 transient ischemic attacks (0.9%). The cerebral protection device–related complications were 4 (0.9%): 1 case of abrupt closure of the internal carotid artery because of spiral dissection (0.2%), 1 case of trapped guide wire (0.2%), and 2 cases of intimal dissection (0.5%). Transient loss of consciousness, tremors, and fasciculations were present in 6 of 40 patients (15%) in whom occlusive protection devices were used. Conclusions— Our data suggest that percutaneous stenting of the carotid artery when a cerebral protection device is used is feasible and effective but not without potential complications. However, a long learning curve may exist for the proper use of some embolic protection devices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.str.0000081000.23561.61

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 330

Metadata

Authors
Cremonesi, A., Manetti, R., Setacci, F., Setacci, C., & Castriota, F.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2003-08
Volume
34
Issue
8
Pages
1936-1941
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2169527012
Cited by
330
References
1
FWCI
26.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Protected Carotid Stenting: Clinical Advantages and Complications of Embolic Protection Devices in 442 Consecutive Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000081000.23561.61
The paper
Cremonesi, A., Manetti, R., Setacci, F., Setacci, C., & Castriota, F. (2003). Protected Carotid Stenting: Clinical Advantages and Complications of Embolic Protection Devices in 442 Consecutive Patients. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000081000.23561.61

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.