SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Carotid endarterectomy in the asymptomatic elderly: a systematic review of literature.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) carries a 4.7% risk of ipsilateral stroke if left untreated. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a surgical intervention that has demonstrated efficacy in reducing stroke risk among symptomatic elderly. However, literature on its efficacy in preventing stroke in patients with ACS remains limited. Our systematic review summarizes evidence on the safety and efficacy of CEA in the asymptomatic elderly.PubMed and Scopus were searched to identify articles that described outcomes after CEA for ACS in patients aged ≥ 65 years old. Articles that did not report outcomes specific to the asymptomatic elderly were excluded. Outcomes of interest were technical success, stroke, death, myocardial infarction and post-operative complications. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to perform a qualitative assessment for risk of bias and studies with NOS ≥ 6 were considered high quality. This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.After a title and abstract screen, followed by a full-text review, 7 studies reporting outcomes in 76,404 patients were included. Five studies were retrospective and two were prospective. Among studies that reported criteria for intervention in ACS patients, 2 studies performed CEA for 70% stenosis and one performed CEA for 60% stenosis. One study reported outcomes for all ranges of stenosis (mild: 0-50%, moderate: 50-79% and severe: 80-99%). Clinical outcomes varied among included studies, with rates of death stroke and myocardial infarction ranging from 0.39 to 6.1%, 0.5-1.2% and 0.9-3%, respectively.The decision to perform CEA in patients with ACS is made after outweighing risks and benefits of surgery based on various factors like age, comorbidities and frailty. At present, evidence is largely limited to retrospective studies that utilized nationwide databases. Prospective studies and randomized controlled trials could help characterize the risk of CEA in this cohort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39425805What 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.