ArticleHippokratia
Long-term mortality and follow-up after carotid artery stenting.
Article in Hippokratia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the prevention of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA). The high long-term mortality among patients who underwent CAS seems to be related to the high comorbidity burden, including coronary and peripheral artery disease. However, limited data on very long-term mortality (over four years) and predictors of death are available.
aimWe sought to investigate the very long-term survival after CAS and the impact of comorbidities on mortality at follow-up.
methodsData of 194 symptomatic and asymptomatic patients who underwent CAS with cerebral protection systems from December 2002 to March 2014 were analyzed. All cause mortality during long-term follow-up was assessed. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to find independent predictors of death.
resultsThe median age of patients was 66 [interquartile range (IQR): 60-73] years and 78.9 % of patients were male. The median follow-up was 7.6 (IQR: 4.4-10.2) years. The all-cause mortality rate after 30 days, one year, four years, and at maximum follow-up was 0 %, 5.1 %, 17.5 % and 31.4 %, respectively. Out of 61 deaths, 37 (60 %) were cardio-cerebral vascular related deaths, 15 (25 %) non-cardiovascular deaths, and 9 (15 %) due to unknown reasons. Among cardio-cerebral vascular deaths, there were 12 fatal strokes, 18 fatal myocardial infarctions and seven other cardiac related deaths. Non-cardiac deaths were due mainly to cancer (9/15). Age and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors of all-cause death during long-term follow-up.
conclusionsThe mortality rate during short and long-term follow-up after CAS was lower than reported in the literature. Age and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors of all-cause death. Further research is needed to confirm the potential association between those risk factors and decreased survival. Hippokratia 2016, 20(3): 204-208.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29097886PMC5654437W3024959741What 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.