Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35469509›Full record

Trial reportInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2023

Carotid artery stenting without embolic protection: A randomized multicenter trial (the CASWEP trial).

Sevket Gorgulu, Muslum Sahin, Niyazi Tugrul Norgaz, Selçuk Pala, Munevver Sarı, Ahmet Arif Yalcin, Ilke Sipahi

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02781181 (Carotid Artery Stenting Without Embolic Protection), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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.

NCT02781181 nacompletednot on this map

Carotid Artery Stenting Without Embolic Protection: A Randomized Multicenter Trial (the CASWEP Trial)

TypeinterventionalSponsorAcibadem UniversityRan2016 to 2020Enrolled279ConditionsCarotid ArteriesArmsCAS with CPD, CAS without CPD
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. How to Penetrate the Wall of an Unintentionally Deployed Wallstent in the External Carotid Artery for Stenting of an Internal Carotid Artery Lesion.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sevket GorguluDepartment of Cardiology, Acibadem University Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey.
Muslum SahinDepartment of Cardiology, Istinye University Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey.
Niyazi Tugrul NorgazDepartment of Cardiology, Acibadem University Medical Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey.
Selçuk PalaDepartment of Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, Kartal Kosuyolu High Speciality Educational and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Munevver SarıDepartment of Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, Kartal Kosuyolu High Speciality Educational and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-2061-415X
Ahmet Arif YalcinDepartment of Cardiology, University of Health Sciences, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Chest and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ilke SipahiMemorial Sisli Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TRAcıbadem University · TRIstinye University · TRMemorial Sisli Hospital · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCarotid artery stenting (CAS) with a carotid protection device (CPD) has become the standard practice in patients with severe carotid stenosis and high surgical risk. However, the clinical efficacy and safety of CPDs are still controversial issues. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the CAS without CPD with CAS combined with CPD.

methodsThis is a multicenter randomized prospective study registered with http://clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02781181). After the exclusion, 279 patients were enrolled (139 patients in the CAS with CPD group and 140 patients in the CAS without CPD group). The primary outcome was a combination of peri-procedural in-hospital transient ischemic attack (TIA), ipsilateral stroke, or death. The secondary outcome was new ischemic brain lesions on post-procedural diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI).

resultsTwo patients died in CAS without CPD group, one patient died in CAS with CPD group. TIA was only seen in patients who underwent CAS under protection (n = 5). The combined primary outcome of TIA, ipsilateral stroke, and death rate was not different between groups (5.7% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.254). New defects were noted on the post-procedural DW-MRI in 28% of patients in the CPD group and 27% of patients in the no CPD group (p = 0.881).

conclusionsThis study suggests that CAS without CPD is not associated with higher rates of peri-procedural TIA, stroke, and death or new ischemic brain lesions on post-procedural DW-MRI compared to CAS with CPD in selected symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with significant carotid artery stenosis provided that there is no visible thrombus.

Indexed as

Carotid StenosisEndarterectomy, CarotidIschemic Attack, TransientStrokeCarotid ArteriesDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingHumansProspective StudiesRisk FactorsStentsTreatment Outcomecarotid artery stentingembolic complicationprotection device

Identifiers

PMID35469509
PMCPMC10399495
OpenAlexW4224441966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.