Restenosis after carotid artery stenting and endarterectomy: a secondary analysis of CREST, a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST), the composite primary endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death during the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke thereafter did not differ between carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenosis. A secondary aim of this randomised trial was to compare the composite endpoint of restenosis or occlusion. METHODS: Patients with stenosis of the carotid artery who were asymptomatic or had had a transient ischaemic attack, amaurosis fugax, or a minor stroke were eligible for CREST and were enrolled at 117 clinical centres in the USA and Canada between Dec 21, 2000, and July 18, 2008. In this secondary analysis, the main endpoint was a composite of restenosis or occlusion at 2 years. Restenosis and occlusion were assessed by duplex ultrasonography at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 48 months and were defined as a reduction in diameter of the target artery of at least 70%, diagnosed by a peak systolic velocity of at least 3·0 m/s. Studies were done in CREST-certified laboratories and interpreted at the Ultrasound Core Laboratory (University of Washington). The frequency of restenosis was calculated by Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and was compared during a 2-year follow-up period. We used proportional hazards models to assess the association between baseline characteristics and risk of restenosis. Analyses were per protocol. CREST is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00004732. FINDINGS: 2191 patients received their assigned treatment within 30 days of randomisation and had eligible ultrasonography (1086 who had carotid artery stenting, 1105 who had carotid endarterectomy). In 2 years, 58 patients who underwent carotid artery stenting (Kaplan-Meier rate 6·0%) and 62 who had carotid endarterectomy (6·3%) had restenosis or occlusion (hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·63-1·29; p=0·58). Female sex (1·79, 1·25-2·56), diabetes (2·31, 1·61-3·31), and dyslipidaemia (2·07, 1·01-4·26) were independent predictors of restenosis or occlusion after the two procedures. Smoking predicted an increased rate of restenosis after carotid endarterectomy (2·26, 1·34-3·77) but not after carotid artery stenting (0·77, 0·41-1·42). INTERPRETATION: Restenosis and occlusion were infrequent and rates were similar up to 2 years after carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting. Subsets of patients could benefit from early and frequent monitoring after revascularisation. FUNDING: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Abbott Vascular Solutions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".