ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2021
Equipoise in Management of Patients With Acute Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis (Hot Carotid).
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Picking Brains on a Global Scale: Practice Current and Practice Buzz.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2022Article
- Physician Approaches to Imaging and Revascularization for Acutely Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Insights from the Hot Carotid Qualitative Study.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore differences in antithrombotic management of patients with acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis ("hot carotid") awaiting revascularization with endarterectomy or stenting (CEA/CAS).
methodsWe used a worldwide electronic survey with practice-related questions and clinical questions about 3 representative scenarios. Respondents chose their preferred antithrombotic regimen (1) in general, (2) if the patient was already on aspirin, or (3) had associated intraluminal thrombus (ILT) and identified clinical/imaging factors that increased or decreased their enthusiasm for additional antithrombotic agents. Responses among different groups were compared using multivariable logistic regression.
resultsWe received 668 responses from 71 countries. The majority favored CT angiography (70.2%) to evaluate carotid stenosis, CEA (69.1%) over CAS, an aspirin-containing regimen (88.5%), and a clopidogrel-containing regimen (64.4%) if already on aspirin. Whereas diverse antithrombotic regimens were chosen, monotherapy was favored by 54.4%-70.6% of respondents across 3 scenarios. The preferred dual therapy was low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg) plus clopidogrel (22.2%) or high-dose aspirin (160-325 mg) plus clopidogrel if already on aspirin (12.2%). Respondents favoring CAS more often chose ≥2 agents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] vs CEA: 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.36-2.95,
conclusionsOur results highlight the heterogeneous management and community equipoise surrounding optimal antithrombotic regimens for hot carotids.
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.