Cargando…
(In)comparability of Carotid Artery Stent Characteristics: A Systematic Review on Assessment and Comparison with Manufacturer Data
PURPOSE: Carotid stent (CS) characteristics, such as radial force, scaffolding and flexibility, are continuously modified by stent manufacturers aiming to improve stent performance. Since manufacturers’ definitions and assessment methods are not disclosed, it is unknown how characteristics of differ...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524852/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32409999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02499-1 |
_version_ | 1783588630182232064 |
---|---|
author | de Vries, Evelien E. Kök, Mert Hoving, Astrid M. Slump, Cornelis H. Toorop, Raechel J. de Borst, Gert J. |
author_facet | de Vries, Evelien E. Kök, Mert Hoving, Astrid M. Slump, Cornelis H. Toorop, Raechel J. de Borst, Gert J. |
author_sort | de Vries, Evelien E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Carotid stent (CS) characteristics, such as radial force, scaffolding and flexibility, are continuously modified by stent manufacturers aiming to improve stent performance. Since manufacturers’ definitions and assessment methods are not disclosed, it is unknown how characteristics of different CSs relate to each other or to published literature. We examined in vitro methodological techniques used to measure CS characteristics and assessed comparability between published papers and outcomes as provided by the manufacturers. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Studies reporting on in vitro investigations of predefined characteristics of CS used in current everyday clinical practice were included. The predefined characteristics were radial force, scaffolding, flexibility, foreshortening, side-branch preservation and visibility. Eight manufacturers of 10 currently used CS were contacted and data on the predefined device characteristics was requested. RESULTS: 12 published articles were included and six stent manufacturers provided data on six stents (two refused to share data). Used methodologies to measure stent characteristics in published literature and manufacturer data varied greatly for all included characteristics except foreshortening. The number of different units of measurement to express outcomes ranged from two for foreshortening to six for radial force. CONCLUSION: A variety of methodologies and outcome measures is used to quantify CS characteristics, which hampers comparisons between published studies and manufacturer data. Future studies are encouraged to synchronize methodologies and outcome measures. Manufacturers are encouraged up to increase transparency of applied testing methodologies and outcomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00270-020-02499-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7524852 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75248522020-10-14 (In)comparability of Carotid Artery Stent Characteristics: A Systematic Review on Assessment and Comparison with Manufacturer Data de Vries, Evelien E. Kök, Mert Hoving, Astrid M. Slump, Cornelis H. Toorop, Raechel J. de Borst, Gert J. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Review PURPOSE: Carotid stent (CS) characteristics, such as radial force, scaffolding and flexibility, are continuously modified by stent manufacturers aiming to improve stent performance. Since manufacturers’ definitions and assessment methods are not disclosed, it is unknown how characteristics of different CSs relate to each other or to published literature. We examined in vitro methodological techniques used to measure CS characteristics and assessed comparability between published papers and outcomes as provided by the manufacturers. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. Studies reporting on in vitro investigations of predefined characteristics of CS used in current everyday clinical practice were included. The predefined characteristics were radial force, scaffolding, flexibility, foreshortening, side-branch preservation and visibility. Eight manufacturers of 10 currently used CS were contacted and data on the predefined device characteristics was requested. RESULTS: 12 published articles were included and six stent manufacturers provided data on six stents (two refused to share data). Used methodologies to measure stent characteristics in published literature and manufacturer data varied greatly for all included characteristics except foreshortening. The number of different units of measurement to express outcomes ranged from two for foreshortening to six for radial force. CONCLUSION: A variety of methodologies and outcome measures is used to quantify CS characteristics, which hampers comparisons between published studies and manufacturer data. Future studies are encouraged to synchronize methodologies and outcome measures. Manufacturers are encouraged up to increase transparency of applied testing methodologies and outcomes. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00270-020-02499-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2020-05-14 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7524852/ /pubmed/32409999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02499-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Review de Vries, Evelien E. Kök, Mert Hoving, Astrid M. Slump, Cornelis H. Toorop, Raechel J. de Borst, Gert J. (In)comparability of Carotid Artery Stent Characteristics: A Systematic Review on Assessment and Comparison with Manufacturer Data |
title | (In)comparability of Carotid Artery Stent Characteristics: A Systematic Review on Assessment and Comparison with Manufacturer Data |
title_full | (In)comparability of Carotid Artery Stent Characteristics: A Systematic Review on Assessment and Comparison with Manufacturer Data |
title_fullStr | (In)comparability of Carotid Artery Stent Characteristics: A Systematic Review on Assessment and Comparison with Manufacturer Data |
title_full_unstemmed | (In)comparability of Carotid Artery Stent Characteristics: A Systematic Review on Assessment and Comparison with Manufacturer Data |
title_short | (In)comparability of Carotid Artery Stent Characteristics: A Systematic Review on Assessment and Comparison with Manufacturer Data |
title_sort | (in)comparability of carotid artery stent characteristics: a systematic review on assessment and comparison with manufacturer data |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7524852/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32409999 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00270-020-02499-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT devrieseveliene incomparabilityofcarotidarterystentcharacteristicsasystematicreviewonassessmentandcomparisonwithmanufacturerdata AT kokmert incomparabilityofcarotidarterystentcharacteristicsasystematicreviewonassessmentandcomparisonwithmanufacturerdata AT hovingastridm incomparabilityofcarotidarterystentcharacteristicsasystematicreviewonassessmentandcomparisonwithmanufacturerdata AT slumpcornelish incomparabilityofcarotidarterystentcharacteristicsasystematicreviewonassessmentandcomparisonwithmanufacturerdata AT tooropraechelj incomparabilityofcarotidarterystentcharacteristicsasystematicreviewonassessmentandcomparisonwithmanufacturerdata AT deborstgertj incomparabilityofcarotidarterystentcharacteristicsasystematicreviewonassessmentandcomparisonwithmanufacturerdata |