Research Article
Comparison and Analysis between the NAV6 Embolic Protection Filter and SpiderFX EPD Filter in Superficial Femoral Artery Lesions
| | % (n/N) | Emboshield NAV6 (N = 161) | SpiderFX EPD (N = 346) | value |
| | Directional (SilverHawk) | 74.5% (120/161) | 69.9% (242/346) | 0.338 | | Rotational (Jetstream) | 13.0% (21/161) | 14.7% (51/346) | 0.593 | | Laser (Turbo Elite) | 13.0% (20/161) | 15.3% (53/346) | 0.483 | | Recoil | 2.5% (4/161) | 0.0% (0/346) | <0.05 | | Access complication | 0.0% (0/161) | 0.6% (2/346) | 0.332 | | Stenosis (pre)a | 90.3 ± 8.4 (161) | 89.0 ± 11.0 (346) | <0.05 | | Stenosis (post)a | 1.4 ± 5.5 (161) | 1.6 ± 9.3 (346) | 0.449 | | Thrombus present | 1.2% (2/161) | 0.9% (3/346) | 0.696 | | Filter overflow | 10.5% (17/161) | 8.7% (30/346) | 0.509 | | Perforation | 0.6% (1/161) | 0.0% (0/346) | 0.144 | | Presence of microembolization | 59.9% (97/161) | 64.2% (222/346) | 0.352 |
|
|
aValues in Mean ± SD. bBy normal approximation for continuous variables and the Newcombe score method for binary variables. SD, standard deviation.
|
