ArticleStroke2026
Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.
Article in Stroke, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe CREST-2 trial demonstrated superiority of carotid artery stenting (CAS) over intensive medical management for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, but it did not evaluate transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR). Herein, we compared ischemic stroke outcomes between TCAR and CAS among patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis in contemporary real-world practice.
methodsWe identified adults with asymptomatic carotid stenosis undergoing TCAR versus CAS using the 2016 to 2024 TriNetX database, which is a multicenter federated database of electronic health records. Propensity score matching was performed for demographics, laboratory values, risk factors, comorbidities, and medications. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke within 4 years.
resultsAmong 7303 identified patients, 2207 patients remained in each group after matching. TCAR did not demonstrate a significantly different stroke risk compared with CAS (hazard ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.44-1.06]). The absolute risk difference was numerically but nonsignificantly lower for patients with TCAR throughout the follow-up period, progressively widening over time: 0.35% at 6 months (0.61% versus 0.96%;
conclusionsTCAR did not significantly lower stroke risk compared with CAS for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Although nonsignificant trends towards lower stroke risk were observed for TCAR, the widening of absolute risk differences over time suggests residual confounding rather than potential procedural benefit.
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.