ArticleWorld journal of surgery2020
Long-term Durability and Safety of Carotid Endarterectomy Closure Techniques.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2020. 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.
- Evaluation of mid- and long-term outcomes following carotid endarterectomy with a double-layer primary arteriotomy closure technique.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Arteriotomy Closure Technique for Carotid Endarterectomy: Bovine Pericardial Patch Closure versus Primary Closure.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious techniques have been used for the execution of carotid endarterectomy; primary (PC), patch closure (CP) and eversion technique (ET).The superiority of any of them is still unproven. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of each technique in terms of cerebrovascular event (CVE), restenosis, survival and major cardiac event (MACE).
methodsBetween 2007 and 2018, a retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data from three European tertiary centers was undertaken including 1.357 patients. Demographics, comorbidities and medical treatment were analyzed in relation to long-term outcomes. Freedom from CVE, restenosis (> 70%), survival and MACE were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis curve.
resultsThe mean age was 69.5 ± 8 (72% males;79% asymptomatic). 472 (35%) were treated with PC, 504 (37%) with CP and 381 (28%) with ET. Differences among groups were observed in age (P < 0.001), gender (P < 0.01), hypertension (P = 0.01), dyslipidemia (P < 0.001) and statin treatment (P < 0.001). The mean follow-up was 4.7 ± 3 years (median: 5 years). Seventy-three patients presented a CVE during 8 years of follow-up. The freedom from CVE including all techniques was 96% (SE 0.6%), 93% (SE 1%) and 89% (SE 1.6%), at 2, 5 and 8 years of follow-up, respectively, with no difference between groups (P .289). Freedom from restenosis was at 96% (SE 0.7%) and 89% (SE 5%) at 5 and 10 years, respectively, for all methods without differences. ET was associated with a higher mortality rate (P < 0.001) and MACE rate (P < 0.001).
conclusionsExcellent outcomes were achieved with all types of closure techniques with low rates of MACE and other adverse events during long-term follow-up after CEA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32462218What 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.