SynthesisZeitschrift fur Kardiologie2005
Stent-supported angioplasty versus endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis: evidence from current randomized trials.
Synthesis in Zeitschrift fur Kardiologie, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short term outcomes of carotid surgery: the real-world experience of a single teaching center.Jornal vascular brasileiro · 2024Article
- Article
- Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists during carotid artery stenting: results from the carotid artery stenting (CAS) registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte (ALKK).Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenoses is evolving as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the value of CAS is still a matter of debate. Therefore, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on this issue.
methodsRCTs were identified through searching MEDLINE, textbooks and by personal communication.
resultsSix finished RCTs on this issue could be identified, including 1263 patients, 628 randomized to CAS and 635 to CEA. The 30-day death or stroke rate was 8.0% (50/628) in patients treated with CAS compared to 6.1% (39/635) in CEA patients (OR=1.36, 95% CI: 0.88-2.11; p=0.17; p for heterogeneity=0.009). The rate of cranial nerve palsy was 7.1% in the CEA compared to 0% in the CAS group (p<0.0001). The rate of myocardial infarctions was reduced from 3.1 to 1% (OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.12- 0.81; p=0.02; p for heterogeneity=0.49). The death or stroke rate during follow-up was 12.1% in patients treated with CAS compared to 12.2% in CEA patients (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.70-1.42; p=0.98; p for heterogeneity=0.02).
conclusionThe available RCT data on CAS vs. CEA suggest that both methods seem to be equally effective concerning short- and medium-term results, while CAS is associated with lower minor complications than CEA. However, because of the significant heterogeneity between the study outcomes, the results of the large RCTs underway should be awaited before it can be advised to use CAS in a broader perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.