ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Carotid Artery Stenting: Evolution, Evidence, and Contemporary Practice in the Era of Intensive Medical Therapy.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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.
- Predictors of Heart Rate Depression During Carotid Artery Stenting in Presumed Low-Risk Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid artery stenosis remains a major cause of ischemic stroke worldwide, and its management continues to evolve in parallel with advances in surgical, endovascular, and medical therapies. Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) was established as the standard of care for symptomatic high-grade stenosis following landmark randomized trials, while carotid artery stenting (CAS) subsequently emerged as a less invasive alternative for appropriately selected patients. This review aims to summarize the historical evolution of carotid artery stenting, critically appraise evidence from major clinical trials comparing CAS and CEA, and examine contemporary practice patterns in the era of intensive medical therapy. A comprehensive review of randomized trials, registries, guideline statements, and recent literature was performed to synthesize current evidence regarding procedural outcomes, patient selection, and emerging technologies, including transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Large, randomized trials have demonstrated comparable long-term composite outcomes between CAS and CEA in selected patients, although peri-procedural risk profiles differ, with higher stroke risk observed after CAS and higher myocardial infarction rates after CEA. Technological advancements in embolic protection devices, stent platforms, and alternative access strategies have further refined endovascular approaches. Concurrently, improvements in intensive medical therapy-including lipid-lowering, antiplatelet therapy, blood pressure control, smoking cessation, and lifestyle modification-have substantially reduced overall stroke risk, particularly in asymptomatic patients. In the contemporary era, optimal stroke prevention requires individualized, multidisciplinary decision-making that integrates symptom status, anatomical complexity, comorbid conditions, procedural expertise, and sustained long-term vascular risk factor management following revascularization.
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.