Historical perspective of carotid artery stenting in Japan: Analysis of 8,092 cases in the Japanese CAS survey
Acta Neurochirurgica, ISSN: 0001-6268, Vol: 154, Issue: 12, Page: 2127-2137
2012
- 30Citations
- 28Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations30
- Citation Indexes30
- 30
- CrossRef19
- Captures28
- Readers28
- 28
Review Description
Background and purpose We conducted a large retrospective survey of the clinical results of carotid artery stenting (CAS) for about 10 years performed by neurointerventionists at 43 Japanese institutions. Hence, the historical perspective of CAS in Japan was demonstrated. Methods Cases were stratified into three separate periods based on the approval status of devices: the first period, in which off-label CAS was performed using balloon protection; the second period, using a limited number of approved devices under filter protection; the third period, using appropriate protection selected from several different options based on the preoperative evaluation (tailored CAS). Clinical results were retrospectively evaluated. Then 30-day results of each period were examined. The major adverse event (MAE) was defined as stroke, myocardial infarction or death. Results Between January 2001 and December 2010, a total of 8,092 cases were registered, including 4,072, 1,526 and 2,494 in the first, second and third period, respectively. In the first period, 92 % of CAS was performed under balloon protection. In contrast, 91 % was done under filter protection in the second period. In the third period, various protection methods were used, including balloon (31 %), filter (50 %) and proximal protection (18 %). The rate of MAE at 30 days was 6.1 %, 10.2 % and 3.5 % in the first, second and third periods, respectively, and 6.3 % in all periods combined. The rate of MAE in the third period was significantly lower than that in the first and second periods. Conclusions The historical paradigm of CAS in Japan was demonstrated. Due to the improvement of devices, increasing experience and appropriate selection of protection, CAS is continuing to evolve into a safer and more efficacious method of stroke prevention. © Springer-Verlag Wien 2012.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84871075338&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-012-1508-9; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23053283; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00701-012-1508-9; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s00701-012-1508-9; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/s00701-012-1508-9; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-012-1508-9; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00701-012-1508-9
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know