ReviewFrontiers in stroke2026
Treatment of carotid stenosis: an updated review.
Review in Frontiers in stroke, 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.
- Association of Monocyte Subsets with Carotid Artery Stenosis Severity.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Atherosclerotic carotid stenosis represents one of the main treatable causes of ischemic stroke, accounting for approximately 10%-15% of all cerebrovascular events. Treatment of this condition has evolved significantly over the past decades, shifting from exclusively surgical approaches to a paradigm that includes optimized medical treatment, carotid endarterectomy, and stenting. Recent 2025 publications, including CREST-2 and ECST-2, have brought paradigm-shifting data that challenge previously established concepts. Objective: To provide an extensive and rigorous narrative review on the treatment of carotid stenosis, including common and internal carotid arteries. Methods: This narrative review was carried out using the PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS-VHL, Google Scholar, and SciELO databases. DeCS and MeSH descriptors were employed to identify articles published from 2020 to 2025, without restrictions regarding language or geography. Results: In the CREST-2 stenting trial, adding carotid stenting to optimal medical therapy (OMT) was superior to OMT alone for the 4-year composite primary endpoint (any periprocedural stroke or death, or subsequent ipsilateral ischemic stroke): 2.8% vs. 6.0% ( Conclusion: Contemporary data indicate a paradigm shift in the management of carotid stenosis. Optimal medical therapy (OMT), intensified by increasingly stringent LDL-c and blood-pressure targets, is the cornerstone of management for all patients and the principal driver of the marked decline in stroke risk observed over the past two decades. Against this strengthened medical background, the role of revascularization has become more selective: in high-grade asymptomatic stenosis, adding carotid stenting to OMT conferred a modest absolute benefit over OMT alone, whereas carotid endarterectomy (the long-standing gold standard) did not show a statistically significant benefit. These findings support an individualized, plaque- and risk-based strategy in which OMT is universal and revascularization (preferentially by stenting when an intervention is chosen) is reserved for selected patients, with timing and modality guided by stenosis severity, plaque vulnerability, life expectancy, and patient preference.
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.