Systematic Review of the Perioperative Risks of Stroke or Death After Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has not been shown to be as safe as carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with regard to the risks of periprocedural complications, but beyond the perioperative period, the risks are comparable, suggesting that CAS may be an acceptable option in selected patients. However, risk factors for perioperative stroke and death have not been clearly established. We aimed to estimate the 30-day absolute risks of stroke or death after CAS and investigate sources of heterogeneity. METHODS: We sought articles published between January 1990 and June 2008 by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the COCHRANE databases, hand-searching, abstract books from conferences, and official websites. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate selected articles on the risks of CAS, irrespective of the type of treatment, study design, setting, or language. The 2 reviewers abstracted data and assessed the quality of the studies. RESULTS: Two hundred six independent studies (with 54 713 patients) were included. The overall 30-day risk of stroke or death was 4.7% (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.2) with substantial heterogeneity across studies. Symptomatic patients were about twice as likely as those with asymptomatic stenoses to have complications. The 30-day risk of stroke or death was 7.6% (6.3 [corrected] to 9.1) in symptomatic and 3.3% (2.6 to 4.1) in asymptomatic patients. Risks increased with age, hypertension, and history of coronary artery disease; were unrelated to sex and the presence of contralateral carotid occlusion; and were lower in patients who had carotid restenosis after CEA and in those treated with the use of a cerebral protection device. Risks have also decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of CAS vary substantially across studies. Risks are overall higher than those of CEA in symptomatic patients. Some factors are likely to help select good candidates for CAS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".