Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting is Safe in Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Results of randomized controlled trials have shown that carotid endarterectomy poses greater perioperative risks to women than to men. There are limited studies regarding sex differences in carotid angioplasty and stenting. OBJECTIVES: To compare male and female patients undergoing carotid stenting with regard to their intraprocedural complications and 30-day outcome. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent carotid stenting between 1997 and 2007 at our tertiary centre. Distal protection devices were used in all patients after 1999. Demographics, risk factors, intraprocedural complications, and 30-day outcomes were compared between female and male patients. RESULTS: Among 243 patients who underwent 255 procedures, 67 were women (27.6%). The mean (SD) age of the female patients was 72.2 ± 8.4 years and that of the male patients was 72.0 ± 9.6 years (P = .83). The majority of patients had symptomatic carotid artery disease; 11 women (16.4%) and 30 men (16.0%) were asymptomatic. The following intraprocedural complications were noticed in female vs male patients: asymptomatic carotid and/or iliac dissections 7.5% vs 0% (P = .001), minor stroke 0% vs 1.1% (P = 1.00), major stroke 0% vs 0.5% (P = 1.00), and cardiac dysrhythmias 3% vs 2.7% (P = 1.00). At 30 days, the outcomes in women vs men were as follows: mortality 3.0% vs 3.2% (P = 1.00), major stroke 3.0% vs 2.1 % (P = .66), and minor stroke 3.0% vs 3.2% (P = 1.00). CONCLUSION: Although minor asymptomatic intraprocedural dissections were more common in women, we did not find any impact of sex on the 30-day outcome. We concluded that carotid stenting can be performed as safely in women as in men.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".