ArticleJournal of vascular surgery2026
Rethinking the impact of amaurosis with contemporary outcomes of carotid endarterectomy among patients with transient monocular blindness.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile historically amaurosis fugax was clinically categorized similarly to ipsilateral hemispheric transient ischemic attack (TIA) or stroke, it remains unclear whether transient monocular blindness confers comparable risk to patients in contemporary practice. The purpose of this analysis was to compare postoperative stroke risk among patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for amaurosis, compared with patients with TIA, stroke, or asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
methodsWe studied patients who underwent CEA in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) (2016-2024) and performed a subgroup analysis among patients with linked Medicare claims data (2016-2019). The primary exposure was baseline symptom status, classified as amaurosis, TIA, stroke, or asymptomatic. The primary outcome was stroke. Logistic regression was used to compare the likelihood of in-hospital stroke across the four groups for all examined VQI patients, and Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression was used among patients with linked Medicare data.
resultsWe identified 177,859 carotid stenosis patients who underwent CEA (amaurosis, 7.0%; TIA, 12.1%; stroke, 25.4%; and asymptomatic, 55.5%). The in-hospital stroke risk was 0.8% for amaurosis, compared with 1.4%, 2.0%, and 0.7% for TIA, stroke, and asymptomatic presentations, respectively. Compared with asymptomatic patients, the adjusted odds ratio of stroke was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.46; P = .18) for patients with amaurosis and was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.51-2.06; P < .01) and 2.30 (95% CI, 2.05-2.59; P < .01) for those with TIA and stroke, respectively. We identified 31,010 patients with linked Medicare claims data (amaurosis, 6.0%; TIA, 10.7%; stroke, 21.9%; and asymptomatic, 61.4%). The 3-year stroke risk was 6.1% for patients with amaurosis, compared with 12.4%, 16.0%, and 5.0% for patients with TIA, stroke, and those who were asymptomatic, respectively (log-rank: P < .001). Compared with asymptomatic patients, the adjusted hazard ratio of stroke was 1.15 (95% CI, 0.91-1.45; P = .21) for patients with amaurosis and was 2.03 (95% CI, 1.74-2.36; P < .01) and 2.80 (95% CI, 2.50-3.14; P < .01) for patients with TIA and stroke, respectively.
conclusionsPatients undergoing CEA in the setting of amaurosis fugax had a statistically similar perioperative and 3-year stroke risk compared with asymptomatic patients. By contrast, hemispheric TIAs or stroke conferred greater risks longitudinally. These findings suggest that it may be appropriate to reconsider the historical risk perception associated with transient monocular blindness to a less severe phenotype and can inform preoperative decision-making for patients considering CEA.
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.