ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Comparative evaluation of the CGuard dual-layer stent and Carotid Wallstent for elective carotid artery stenting: a retrospective multicenter study.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the CGuard dual-layer stent with its mesh embolic protection system (EPS) in elective cases for treatment of internal carotid artery stenosis and compares it to the Carotid Wallstent as benchmark.
methodsIn this retrospective, multicenter study, we analyzed data from consecutive patients who underwent carotid artery stenting with CGuard at two high-volume neurointerventional centers and compared them with prior consecutive patients treated with Carotid Wallstent (CWS), with and without a balloon guiding catheter (BGC) as protection, at the same institutions. Patient demographics, procedural details, clinical complications, early in-stent thrombosis and occlusion rates, and late follow-up restenosis rates were assessed.
resultsA total of 428 patients were treated, 144 with the CGuard stent, 203 with CWS + BGC and 83 with CWS-BGC, the majority of patients for symptomatic stenoses. Technical success was achieved in 98.6% of CGuard patients. No clinical complications were observed in CGuard patients, however the clinical complication rate was 2.96% (6/203) for CWS + BGC and 4.94% (4/83) for CWS-BGC patients (p = 0.052). The in-hospital stent occlusion rate was 0.69% (1/144) for CGuard and 2.1% (6/286) in CWS ± BGC patients (p = 0.49). On long-term follow-up (mean 9.9 months) the CGuard demonstrated a comparatively low rate of restenosis (6.25%) and retreatment (2.1%).
conclusionThe CGuard dual-layer stent was safe and effective for carotid artery stenting in our series. Its design appears to contribute to a low risk of periprocedural complications, high technical success rate, while maintaining restenosis rates comparable to the Carotid Wallstent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.