Trial reportJournal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists2009
Carotid revascularization using endarterectomy or stenting systems (CaRESS): 4-year outcomes.
Trial report in Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative safety and efficacy of invasive therapies for carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Temporal trends in safety of carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic patients: systematic review.Neurology · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Carotid artery stenting in difficult aortic arch anatomy with or without a new dedicated guiding catheter: preliminary experience.European radiology · 2013Trial
- Unprotected carotid artery stenting in symptomatic patients with high-grade stenosis: results and long-term follow-up in a single-center experience.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2012Trial
- Review
- Role of Carotid Artery Stenting in Prevention of Stroke for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Bayesian Cross-Design and Network Meta-Analyses.Korean circulation journal · 2020Article
- Recommendations for carotid stenting in Korea.Neurointervention · 2015Review
- Interventional management of asymptomatic extracranial carotid stenosis.Current cardiology reports · 2011Review
- Gender differences in treatment of severe carotid stenosis after transient ischemic attack.Stroke · 2010Article
- Society of vascular surgery vascular registry comparison of carotid artery stenting outcomes for atherosclerotic vs nonatherosclerotic carotid artery disease.Journal of vascular surgery · 2010Article
- Ischemic stroke in the elderly: an overview of evidence.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2010Review
- Indications and applications for extracranial carotid artery stent placement.Current cardiology reports · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo examine the 4-year outcomes from Carotid Revascularization using Endarterectomy or Stenting Systems (CaRESS) in light of the current reimbursement guidelines for carotid artery stenting (CAS) from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
methodsCaRESS was designed as a prospective, nonrandomized comparative cohort study of a broad-risk population of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis. In all, 397 patients (247 men; mean age 71 years, range 43-89) were enrolled and underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA; n = 254) or protected CAS (n = 143). More than 90% of patients had >75% stenosis; two thirds were asymptomatic. The primary endpoints included (1) all-cause mortality, (2) any stroke, and (3) myocardial infarction (MI), as well as the composite endpoints of (4) death and any nonfatal stroke and (5) death, nonfatal stroke, and MI. The secondary endpoints were restenosis, repeat angiography, and carotid revascularization. All patients were classified with respect to surgical risk, symptom status, and stenosis grade based on criteria published by the CMS. In addition, separate analyses were performed comparing genders and octogenarians to those <80 years old.
resultsNo significant differences in the primary outcome measures were found between the CEA and CAS groups in the 4-year analysis. The incidences of any stroke at 4 years were 9.6% for CEA and 8.6% for CAS (p = 0.444); when combined with death, the composite death/nonfatal stroke rates were 26.5% for CEA versus 21.8% for CAS (p = 0.361). The composite endpoint of death, nonfatal stroke, and MI at 4 years was 27.0% in CEA versus 21.7% in CAS (p = 0.273) patients. The secondary endpoints of restenosis (p = 0.014) and repeat angiography (p = 0.052) were higher in the CAS arm. There were no differences in any of the subgroups stratified according the CMS guidelines or in the gender comparison. Four-year incidences of death/nonfatal stroke and death/nonfatal stroke/MI were higher in the CEA arm among patients <80 years of age (p = 0.049 and p = 0.030, respectively). There were no significant differences between these incidences in the octogenarian subgroup.
conclusionThe risk of death or nonfatal stroke 4 years following CAS with distal protection is equivalent to CEA in a broad category of patients with carotid stenosis. There were no significant differences in stroke or mortality rates between high-risk and non-high-risk patients and no differences in outcomes between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. After 4 years, CAS had a 2-fold higher restenosis rate compared to CEA. The risk of death/stroke or death/stroke/MI appears to be higher following CEA than CAS among patients <80 years of age, yet there is no statistically significant relationship between death, stroke, or MI among octogenarians.
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.