ReviewAnnals of vascular surgery2025
What the National Coverage Determination for Carotid Artery Stenting Means for the Treatment of Patients with Carotid Artery Disease.
Review in Annals of vascular surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of the Medicare carotid stenting national coverage determination on procedure utilization and long-term stroke risk after carotid revascularization.Journal of vascular surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of transfemoral carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy versus transcarotid artery revascularization in standard- and high-risk patients since the CMS decision in October 2023 using the VQI.Journal of vascular surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Predictors of postoperative stroke after transfemoral carotid artery stenting.Journal of vascular surgery · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn October 2023, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services agreed to revisit its national coverage determination (NCD) for carotid artery stenting (CAS). We provide an overview of the arguments presented in favor and against NCD expansion, and discuss the likely ramifications on patient care and outcomes in the future.
methodsWe completed a narrative review of the arguments presented in favor and against NCD expansion.
resultsArguments presented in favor of the CAS NCD expansion predominantly focused on the outcomes of 4 large multicenter randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2021 that reported similar outcomes for composite end points between patients undergoing CAS and carotid endarterectomy. The main arguments against expanding the CAS NCD centered around higher patient stroke risks with CAS, increasing health-care costs, premature decision-making, and the lack of a validated shared decision-making tool that can be readily applied to carotid revascularization.
conclusionsBy expanding the indications for CAS to asymptomatic and standard-risk patients, they will be exposed to excess and unnecessary risks without any evident benefits, potentially leading to widespread adoption of a procedure driven by financial incentives rather than genuine patient benefits.
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.