ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2017
Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting and Embolic Protection.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2017. 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.
- Proximal balloon-guided catheter with flow inversion vs. distal filter protection during the carotid stent placement, a seven years experience in a Colombian reference center.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2023Observational
- Unusual complication of carotid artery stenting as the result of a proximal emboli protection device (the Mo.Ma): Iatrogenic common carotid artery dissection.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewWe review the evidence on the safety and efficacy of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) compared to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and also summarizes emerging technical issues. RECENT
findingsRandomized trials have demonstrated a progressive decrease of periprocedural strokes after CAS. Overall, in symptomatic patients, CAS is associated with a slightly higher risk of periprocedural strokes when compared to CEA. This is especially true after the age of 70 and immediately after a presenting symptomatic event. CAS is associated with lower incidence of periprocedural cardiac events and cranial nerve palsies. Both procedures are equally effective in preventing future ipsilateral ischemic events, and restenosis after CAS is not a major limitation. In asymptomatic patients, CAS is as safe as CEA, although modern medical therapy may be as effective as any carotid intervention. CAS is a valid alternative to CEA in selected patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. In asymptomatic patients, the two procedures are equally safe, although medical therapy alone may be as effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29046977What 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.