Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24477109›Full record

Trial reportNeurology2014

Randomized Evaluation of Carotid Occlusion and Neurocognition (RECON) trial: main results.

Randolph S Marshall, Joanne R Festa, Ying-Kuen Cheung, Marykay A Pavol, Colin P Derdeyn, William R Clarke, Tom O Videen, Robert L Grubb, Kevin Slane, William J Powers and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. The stronger one-sided relative hypoperfusion, the more pronounced ipsilateral spatial attentional bias in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2020
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Hemodynamics and oxygen extraction in chronic large artery steno-occlusive disease: Clinical applications for predicting stroke risk.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2018
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Randolph S MarshallFrom Columbia University Medical Center (R.S.M., Y.-K.C., M.A.P., K.S., R.M.L.), New York; St. Luke's Roosevelt Medical Center New York (J.R.F.), New York; NINDS (Y.-K.C.), Bethesda, MD; Washington University (C.P.D., T.O.V., R.L.G.), St. Louis, MO; University of Iowa (W.R.C.), Iowa City; and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (W.J.P.).
Joanne R Festa
Ying-Kuen Cheung
Marykay A Pavol
Colin P Derdeyn
William R Clarke
Tom O Videen
Robert L Grubb
Kevin Slane
William J Powers
Ronald M Lazar
RECON Investigators
St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center · USUniversity of Iowa · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

CAROTID OCCLUSION SURGERY STUDYU01NS042167 · NINDS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI POWERS, WILLIAM J · 2001 to 2010
$21.7M
DMC-Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS)U01NS041895 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI CLARKE, WILLIAM R. · 2001 to 2011
$7.5M
Study of Carotid Occlusion and Neurocognition (RECON)R01NS048212 · NINDS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MARSHALL, RANDOLPH S · 2005 to 2009
$2.0M
NINDS NIH HHS 5U01NS041895NINDS NIH HHS NS048212NINDS NIH HHS NS42167
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether extracranial-intracranial (EC-IC) bypass can improve cognition over 2 years compared to best medical therapy alone in patients with symptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion and increased oxygen extraction fraction (OEF) on PET.

methodsPatients underwent (15)O PET and were randomized if OEF ratio was >1.13 on the occluded side. Using blinded baseline and 2-year cognitive assessments, age-adjusted composite z scores were generated from subtests sensitive to right/left hemisphere plus global cognitive functioning. Multiple regression predicted 2-year cognitive change.

resultsEighty-nine patients were enrolled; 41 had increased OEF and were randomized. Two died, 2 were lost to follow-up, and 2 refused 2-year testing. Of the 35 remaining, 6 had ipsilateral stroke or death, leaving 13 surgical and 16 medical patients. Controlling for age, education, and depression, there was no difference in 2-year cognitive change between the medical and surgical arms (95% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.5, p = 0.9). In post hoc analysis of 26 patients with no stroke in the follow-up period, cognitive improvement was associated with less impaired PET OEF at baseline (p = 0.045).

conclusionCognitive improvement following bypass surgery was not superior to medical therapy among patients with recently symptomatic carotid occlusion and increased OEF. Among those with no recurrent stroke, less hemodynamic impairment at baseline was associated with greater cognitive gain in both groups. Reversing cognitive impairment in hemodynamic failure remains an open challenge. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with symptomatic ICA occlusion and increased OEF on PET, EC-IC bypass compared to no bypass does not improve cognitive function after 2 years.

Indexed as

CognitionAgedCarotid Artery, ExternalCarotid Artery, InternalCarotid StenosisCerebral RevascularizationFemaleHemodynamicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24477109
PMCPMC3945653
OpenAlexW2002828813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.