Trial reportStroke and vascular neurology2023
Comparison of carotid endarterectomy and repeated carotid angioplasty and stenting for in-stent restenosis (CERCAS trial): a randomised study.
Trial report in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05390983 (Comparison of Carotid Endarterectomy and Repeated Carotid Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty With or Without Stenting for In-stent Restenosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of Carotid Endarterectomy and Repeated Carotid Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty With or Without Stenting for In-stent Restenosis
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Effects of Platelet Reactivity in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenting or Carotid Artery Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current neurovascular research · 2025Pooled it
- Association of systemic inflammatory index and HbA1c with in-stent restenosis in arteriosclerosis obliterans patients after stenting: a propensity score-matched analysis.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Assessment of Plaque Characteristics by Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Stent Restenosis following Carotid Artery Stenting: A Retrospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Mid-Term Results of an Italian Multicentric Experience with the RoadsaverHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimIn-stent restenosis (ISR) belongs to an infrequent but potentially serious complication after carotid angioplasty and stenting in patients with severe carotid stenosis. Some of these patients might be contraindicated to repeat percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting (rePTA/S). The purpose of the study is to compare the safety and effectiveness of carotid endarterectomy with stent removal (CEASR) and rePTA/S in patients with carotid ISR.
methodsConsecutive patients with carotid ISR (≥80%) were randomly allocated to the CEASR or rePTA/S group. The incidence of restenosis after intervention, stroke, transient ischaemic attack myocardial infarction and death 30 days and 1 year after intervention and restenosis 1 year after intervention between patients in CEASR and rePTA/S groups were statistically evaluated.
resultsA total of 31 patients were included in the study; 14 patients (9 males; mean age 66.3±6.6 years) were allocated to CEASR and 17 patients (10 males; mean age 68.8±5.6 years) to the rePTA/S group. The implanted stent in carotid restenosis was successfully removed in all patients in the CEASR group. No clinical vascular event was recorded periproceduraly, 30 days and 1 year after intervention in both groups. Only one patient in the CEASR group had asymptomatic occlusion of the intervened carotid artery within 30 days and one patient died in the rePTA/S group within 1 year after intervention. Restenosis after intervention was significantly greater in the rePTA/S group (mean 20.9%) than in the CEASR group (mean 0%, p=0.04), but all stenoses were <50%. Incidence of 1-year restenosis that was ≥70% did not differ between the rePTA/S and CEASR groups (4 vs 1 patient; p=0.233).
conclusionCEASR seems to be effective and save procedures for patients with carotid ISR and might be considered as a treatment option. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05390983.
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.