ReviewVascular health and risk management2014
Carotid revascularization: risks and benefits.
Review in Vascular health and risk management, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carotid artery stenosis: a guide for clinicians.Future cardiology · 2026Review
- The intracranial effects of flow reversal during transcarotid artery revascularization.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2024Article
- Aberrant expression of miR-483-5p in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis and its predictive value for cerebrovascular event occurrence.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2021Article
- Intravascular lithotripsy during transcarotid arterial revascularization for highly calcified lesions in high-risk patients.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2021Article
- Review of imaging biomarkers for the vulnerable carotid plaque.JVS-vascular science · 2021Review
- Intracranial vascular feature changes in time of flight MR angiography in patients undergoing carotid revascularization surgery.Magnetic resonance imaging · 2021Article
- MicroRNA-503-5p improves carotid artery stenosis by inhibiting the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Clinical Comparison of Outcomes of Early versus Delayed Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Cerebral Watershed Infarction due to Stenosis of the Proximal Internal Carotid Artery.BioMed research international · 2016Article
- Carotid Artery Stenosis with Acute Ischemic Stroke: Stenting versus Angioplasty.Journal of vascular and interventional neurology · 2015Article
- Comparative Review of the Treatment Methodologies of Carotid Stenosis.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2015Review
- Smooth muscle immaturity in the carotid arterial neointima as a prognostic marker for systemic atherogenic cardiovascular events in the Asian male.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite a decline during the recent decades in stroke-related death, the incidence of stroke has remained unchanged or slightly increased, and extracranial carotid artery stenosis is implicated in 20%-30% of all strokes. Medical therapy and risk factor modification are first-line therapies for all patients with carotid occlusive disease. Evidence for the treatment of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis greater than 70% with either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is compelling, and several trials have demonstrated a benefit to carotid revascularization in the symptomatic patient population. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is more controversial, with the largest trials only demonstrating a 1% per year risk stroke reduction with CEA. Although there are sufficient data to advocate for aggressive medical therapy as the primary mode of treatment for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, there are also data to suggest that certain patient populations will benefit from a stroke risk reduction with carotid revascularization. In the United States, consensus and practice guidelines dictate that CEA is reasonable in patients with high-grade asymptomatic stenosis, a reasonable life expectancy, and perioperative risk of less than 3%. Regarding CAS versus CEA, the best-available evidence demonstrates no difference between the two procedures in early perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, or death, and no difference in 4-year ipsilateral stroke risk. However, because of the higher perioperative risks of stroke in patients undergoing CAS, particularly in symptomatic, female, or elderly patients, it is difficult to recommend CAS over CEA except in populations with prohibitive cardiac risk, previous carotid surgery, or prior neck radiation. Current treatment paradigms are based on identifying the magnitude of perioperative risk in patient subsets and on using predictive factors to stratify patients with high-risk asymptomatic stenosis.
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.