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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Beneficial Effect of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients with High-Grade Carotid Stenosis
(1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199108153250701 · Cited by 8,368
Cited by
ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral artery diseases
Endorsed by: the European Stroke Organisation (ESO), Authors/Task Force Members, Tendera, M., Aboyans, V., Bartelink, M.-L., Baumgartner, I., Clément, D., Collet, J.-P., Cremonesi, A., De Carlo, M., et al. (2011) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr211 · Cited by 1,506
Self-citationDoes Free Cell Area Influence the Outcome in Carotid Artery Stenting?
Bosiers, M., de Donato, G., Deloose, K., Verbist, J., Peeters, P., Castriota, F., Cremonesi, A., & Setacci, C. (2007) · European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2006.09.019 · Cited by 320
Self-citation
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.