Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32478802›Full record

Trial reportJAMA neurology2020

Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Endarterectomy vs Initial Medical Therapy in Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

Salomeh Keyhani, Eric M Cheng, Katherine J Hoggatt, Peter C Austin, Erin Madden, Paul L Hebert, Ethan A Halm, Ayman Naseri, Jason M Johanning, Danielle Mowery and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 11 institutions in 3 countries.

Salomeh KeyhaniDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.
Eric M ChengDepartment of Neurology, UCLA (University of California Los Angeles), Los Angeles.
Katherine J HoggattDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco.
Peter C AustinInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Erin MaddenNorthern California Institute of Research and Education, San Francisco.
Paul L HebertUniversity of Washington, Seattle.
Ethan A HalmDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Ayman NaseriSan Francisco Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Jason M JohanningDepartment of Surgery, University of Nebraska, Omaha.
Danielle MoweryBiomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Wendy W ChapmanUniversity of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dawn M BravataDepartment of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
University of California, San Francisco · USNorthern California Institute for Research and Education · USRichard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center · USSan Francisco VA Medical Center · USSeattle University · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha · USUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Artery Revascularization vs Medical TherapyR01HL114563 · NHLBI · NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE/RES/EDU · PI KEYHANI, SALOMEH · 2013 to 2018
$3.6M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL114563
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among asymptomatic patients involves a trade-off between a higher short-term perioperative risk in exchange for a lower long-term risk of stroke. The clinical benefit observed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may not extend to real-world practice. Objective: To examine whether early intervention (CEA) was superior to initial medical therapy in real-world practice in preventing fatal and nonfatal strokes among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study was conducted from August 28, 2018, to March 2, 2020, using the Corporate Data Warehouse, Suicide Data Repository, and other databases of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Data analyzed were those of veterans of the US Armed Forces aged 65 years or older who received carotid imaging between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009. Patients without a carotid imaging report, those with carotid stenosis of less than 50% or hemodynamically insignificant stenosis, and those with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack in the 6 months before index imaging were excluded. A cohort of patients who received initial medical therapy and a cohort of similar patients who received CEA were constructed and followed up for 5 years. The target trial method was used to compute weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and estimate the risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes in each cohort in the pragmatic sample across 5 years of follow-up. This analysis was repeated after restricting the sample to patients who met RCT inclusion criteria. Cumulative incidence functions for fatal and nonfatal strokes were estimated, accounting for nonstroke deaths as competing risks in both the pragmatic and RCT-like samples. Exposures: Receipt of CEA vs initial medical therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Fatal and nonfatal strokes. Results: Of the total 5221 patients, 2712 (51.9%; mean [SD] age, 73.6 [6.0] years; 2678 men [98.8%]) received CEA and 2509 (48.1%; mean [SD] age, 73.6 [6.0] years; 2479 men [98.8%]) received initial medical therapy within 1 year after the index carotid imaging. The observed rate of stroke or death (perioperative complications) within 30 days in the CEA cohort was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.1%). The 5-year risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes was lower among patients randomized to CEA compared with patients randomized to initial medical therapy (5.6% vs 7.8%; risk difference, -2.3%; 95% CI, -4.0% to -0.3%). In an analysis that incorporated the competing risk of death, the risk difference between the 2 cohorts was lower and not statistically significant (risk difference, -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 0.5%). Among patients who met RCT inclusion criteria, the 5-year risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes was 5.5% (95% CI, 4.5%-6.5%) among patients randomized to CEA and was 7.6% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.5%) among those randomized to initial medical therapy (risk difference, -2.1%; 95% CI, -4.4% to -0.2%). Accounting for competing risks resulted in a risk difference of -0.9% (95% CI, -2.9% to 0.7%) that was not statistically significant. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the absolute reduction in the risk of fatal and nonfatal strokes associated with early CEA was less than half the risk difference in trials from 20 years ago and was no longer statistically significant when the competing risk of nonstroke deaths was accounted for in the analysis. Given the nonnegligible perioperative 30-day risks and the improvements in stroke prevention, medical therapy may be an acceptable therapeutic strategy.

Indexed as

Endarterectomy, CarotidOutcome Assessment, Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overCarotid StenosisEarly Medical InterventionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRiskStroke

Identifiers

PMID32478802
PMCPMC7265126
OpenAlexW3029774995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.