European registry of carotid artery stenting: Results from a prospective registry of eight high volume EUROPEAN institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the standard revascularization therapy to prevent stroke in patients with carotid artery disease. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) could be considered a potential alternative in patients at high surgical risk. Recent clinical trials have challenged this concept due a relatively high incidence of post-CAS adverse events, which occurred in low volume centers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes associated with neuroprotected CAS in selected high volume centers. METHODS: From January 2007 to December 2007, 1,611 patients underwent neuroprotected CAS in eight European Centers. For each patients, clinical, procedural, and one month follow-up data from all patients have been collected. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated the events. RESULTS: Overall in hospital death was 0.06% (one patient), whereas in-hospital stroke was 0.49% (eight patients). Between hospital discharge and 30 days three additional patients died (0.18%) and 10 patients experienced a stroke (0.67%). Overall 30 days mortality was 0.24% (four patients) and stroke incidence 1.12% (18 patients). The 30 day stroke/death rate was 1.36%. CONCLUSIONS: CAS is a reasonable alternative to CEA to treat carotid artery atherosclerosis in well-experienced high volume centers. These data suggest that future prospective trials comparing CAS and CEA outcomes should include only centers highly experienced in both treatment modalities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".