ArticleAnnals of vascular surgery2021
Procedural Risks of Carotid Intervention in 19,000 Patients.
Article in Annals of vascular surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid stenting (CAS) reduce long-term stroke risk in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery stenosis. Historical RCTs may not represent contemporary practice and administrative datasets may estimate procedural risks more reliably. We studied procedural risks after carotid intervention in a novel, international administrative data set of 18,997 patients admitted to 28 hospitals across 7 countries.
methodsSymptomatic and asymptomatic patients undergoing CEA (n = 16,220) and CAS (n = 2,777) between 2011 and 2015 were studied retrospectively. The primary outcome was in-hospital death within seven days. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients whose length of hospital stay (LOS) exceeded 2 days. We also describe the rate of computerized tomography brain imaging within 2 days of CEA and CAS (proxy for stroke) as procedural strokes were not reliably recorded.
resultsIn symptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.2% [5/2,118] (95% confidence interval: 0.1-0.5), and 57.0% [628/1,101] (54.1-60.0) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CEA, mortality was 0.1% [21/14,102] (0.1-0.2), and 28.5% [2,864/10,039] (27.7-29.4) had prolonged LOS. In symptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 3.3% [10/307] (1.3-5.2), and 64.3% [144/224] (58.0-70.5) had prolonged LOS. In asymptomatic patients after CAS, mortality was 0.7% [18/2,470] (0.4-1.1), and 27.5% [601/2,187] (25.6-29.4) had prolonged LOS. After CEA, 8.1% [89/1,101] (6.5-9.7) symptomatic patients and 2.1% [207/10,039] (1.8-2.3) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging. After CAS, 7.1% [16/224] (4.0-10.7) symptomatic patients and 3.2% [71/2,187] (2.5-4.0) asymptomatic patients underwent brain imaging.
conclusionsDeath and LOS after CEA and CAS were higher in symptomatic than asymptomatic patients. Symptomatic patients undergoing CAS had particularly increased risk of death. This may be partly explained by case selection, with more comorbid patients preferentially undergoing CAS. While RCTs effectively compare long-term efficacy of CEA versus CAS, administrative datasets can provide reliable estimates of contemporary procedural risks.
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.