ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2018
Treatment Strategy Based on Plaque Vulnerability and the Treatment Risk Evaluation for Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Predictive factors for postoperative cerebral infarction after carotid endarterectomy and stenting: A single-center experience from 199 consecutive cases.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Gradual Expansion of a Stent to Prevent Periprocedural Complications after Carotid Artery Stenting for Vulnerable Severe Stenotic Lesions with Intraplaque Hemorrhages: A Retrospective Observational Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Hypothesis of "stroke-stop" formula: a tool for risk index determination in development of acute cerebrovascular disease in asymptomatic individuals with carotid stenosis.BMC neurology · 2021Article
- Carotid Artery Stenting Using the Snake Hunt Technique for Highly Tortuous Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Technical Note.NMC case report journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are not appropriate treatment procedure for internal carotid artery stenosis (ICAS) in some patients. The importance of plaque vulnerability and the treatment risk evaluation has been reported. We analyzed whether treatment selection contributes to the outcome. We retrospectively examined 121 patients who underwent CEA or CAS. Treatment was selected based on plaque vulnerability and the treatment risk evaluation. We selected CAS for patients with stable plaques and CEA for patients with unstable plaques, and considered the other treatment for high-risk patients. The patients were classified as the stable plaque (Stable: n = 42), the unstable plaque and CEA low risk (Unstable/Low: n = 30), and the CEA high-risk (Unstable/High: n = 49). Frequency of perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, death, and systemic complications was examined. CEA and CAS were performed in 35 and 86 patients, respectively. One patient (2.9%) had a stroke in CEA and five patients (5.8%) in CAS (P = 0.50). Systemic complications were observed in two patients (5.7%) in CEA and six (7.1%) in CAS (P = 0.80). There were no differences in stroke (Stable; 2.4%, Unstable/Low; 3.2%, and Unstable/High; 8.2%) and systemic complications (Stable; 9.5%, Unstable/Low; 3.3%, and Unstable/High; 6.1%) among three groups (P = 0.44 and P = 0.59, respectively). The treatment selection based on plaque vulnerability and the treatment risk evaluation could provide good treatment outcome for high-risk patients. It is ideal to select an appropriate treatment for ICAS by one neurovascular team.
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.