ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2020
Timing of carotid endarterectomy and clinical outcomes.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- CIRSE Standards of Practice on Carotid Artery Stenting.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2024Guideline
- Evaluation of Perioperative Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Carotid Endarterectomy.Annals of cardiac anaesthesia · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The timing of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis has evolved in practice over time. Key landmark trials outlined the benefit of performing CEA in the recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, defined as revascularisation within 6 months of the index neurological event. Further evidence and sub-analysis demonstrate that performing CEA within 2 weeks of symptoms has the maximal benefit in reducing stroke free survival and is associated with a safe perioperative complication profile. This has translated into guideline recommendations and widespread clinical practice. The case for performing urgent CEA (within 48 hours of index neurological event) over early CEA (within 2 weeks) has been put forward and studied. Data examining perioperative complications for urgent CEA are mostly derived from retrospective single series studies. A moderate balance exists in the literature for the safety and risk of urgent CEA. Although many studies present acceptable perioperative stroke and mortality rates associated with urgent CEA, evidence still exists that the perioperative complications may not be insignificant. This is particularly the case if the presenting neurology is a stroke, rather than a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or amaurosis fugax. This should be contextualised in the practice of modern aggressive medical therapy with dual antiplatelets and statins, with evidence suggesting a reduction in recurrent ischaemic events prior to surgical intervention. Careful patient selection, presenting neurology and medical therapy is likely to be a key feature in considering urgent CEA versus early CEA.
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.