Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30793257›Full record

ReviewTranslational stroke research2019

Management of De Novo Carotid Stenosis and Postintervention Restenosis-Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Artery Stenting-a Review of Literature.

Runqi Wangqin, Paul R Krafft, Keaton Piper, Jay Kumar, Kaya Xu, Maxim Mokin, Zeguang Ren

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational stroke research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Runqi WangqinDepartment of Neurology, Duke University Medical Center, 2400 Pratt Street, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.
Paul R KrafftDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of South Florida, 2 Tampa General Circle, Tampa, FL, 33606, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2345-0616
Keaton PiperDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of South Florida, 2 Tampa General Circle, Tampa, FL, 33606, USA.
Jay KumarDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of South Florida, 2 Tampa General Circle, Tampa, FL, 33606, USA.
Kaya XuDepartment of Neurosurgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, 550004, Guizhou, China.
Maxim MokinDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of South Florida, 2 Tampa General Circle, Tampa, FL, 33606, USA.
Zeguang RenDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of South Florida, 2 Tampa General Circle, Tampa, FL, 33606, USA. zren@health.usf.edu.
University of South Florida · USDuke Medical Center · USGuiyang Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current literature indicates carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as the preferred treatment for symptomatic, moderate to severe carotid artery stenosis. However, recommendations for the management of acute tandem stenosis and complete occlusion, as well as postintervention restenosis of the carotid artery, remain controversial. Here, we review the literature evaluating these conditions and provide suggestions for clinical decision-making. Acute tandem stenosis or occlusion of the common and internal carotid arteries may be treated with angioplasty alone, reserving carotid artery stenting (CAS) or CEA for severe and complex cases. Patients who underwent CEA and developed ipsilateral restenosis may be subjected to angioplasty followed by CAS, which carries a lower risk of cranial nerve injury and subsequent restenosis of the artery. For post-CAS restenosis, current evidence recommends angioplasty and CAS for the management of moderate stenosis and CEA for severe stenosis of the carotid artery. Given the lack of level 1 evidence for the management of these conditions, the abovementioned recommendations may assist clinical decision-making; however, each case and its unique risks and benefits need to be assessed individually. Future studies evaluating and defining the risks and benefits of specific treatment strategies, such as CEA and CAS, in patients with acute tandem stenosis, occlusion, and postintervention restenosis of the carotid artery need to be conducted.

Indexed as

AngioplastyCarotid StenosisEndarterectomy, CarotidHumansRecurrenceStentsTreatment OutcomeCarotid artery stenosisCarotid artery stentingEndarterectomyRestenosis

Identifiers

PMID30793257
OpenAlexW2916776728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.