1naresh
Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) ) 1nareshArray ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:identity [type] => guest [service-id] => ajnr-ac.highwire.org [access-type] => Controlled [privilege] => Array ( [urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege] => Array ( [runtime-id] => urn:ac.highwire.org:guest:privilege [type] => privilege-set [privilege-set] => GUEST ) ) [credentials] => Array ( [method] => guest ) ) )Table 3:Comparison of arterial damage by the wall-contact devices and the aspiration devicea
Wall-Contact Devices (n = 16) Aspiration System (n = 4) P Valueb Mural thrombus (%) 6.6 ± 15.7 0 ± 0 .28 Endothelial denudation (%) 81.0 ± 16.8 40.1 ± 47.5 .15 Intimal layer edema (%) 58.8 ± 48.9 100 ± 79.1 .27 IEL fractured (%) 26.6 ± 51.2 12.5 ± 14.4 .92 Medial layer edema (%) 46.3 ± 34.8 75 ± 35.4 .13