SynthesisJournal of anesthesia2014
Cardiac damage after carotid intervention: a meta-analysis after a decade of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Journal of anesthesia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carotid artery stenting prior to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with carotid stenosis: Clinical outcomes.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2023Article
- Postcarotid Endarterectomy Hematoma Induced Arrhythmia: Report of a Rare Case.Case reports in vascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study synthesizes evidence from randomized controlled trials of the past decade regarding the relative safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) versus carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) as concerns postoperative cardiac damage.
methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central through November 2013 to December 2013. We determined trial eligibility and extracted descriptive, methodological, and outcome data related to cardiac damage after open or endovascular treatment. Cardiac damage was defined as evidence of symptomatic or asymptomatic myocardial ischemia/infarction.
resultsNine trials (5,959 patients) were eligible for enrollment in this review. CAS was associated with a decreased risk for cardiac damage in all trials (pooled RR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.22-0.61, I(2) = 11%, P = 0.0001), and specifically in the latest two randomized trials that show fewer methodological flaws (RR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.23-0.69, P = 0.03). CAS was associated with 11.5 fewer cardiac events (from 14.7 fewer to 6.3 fewer) compared to CEA.
conclusionsCompared to open surgery, CAS is associated with significantly decreased risk for symptomatic and asymptomatic cardiac damage postoperatively. Therefore, a standardized troponin measurement after CEA should be further evaluated in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24828849What 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.