Safety of Stenting and Endarterectomy by Symptomatic Status in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has varied by symptomatic status in previous trials. The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) data were analyzed to determine safety in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. METHODS: CREST is a randomized trial comparing safety and efficacy of CAS versus CEA in patients with high-grade carotid stenoses. Patients were defined as symptomatic if they had relevant symptoms within 180 days of randomization. The primary end point was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within the periprocedural period or ipsilateral stroke up to 4 years. RESULTS: For 1321 symptomatic and 1181 asymptomatic patients, the periprocedural aggregate of stroke, myocardial infarction, and death did not differ between CAS and CEA (5.2% versus 4.5%; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.68; P=0.38). The stroke and death rate was higher for CAS versus CEA (4.4% versus 2.3%; hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.98; P=0.005). For symptomatic patients, the periprocedural stroke and death rates were 6.0%±0.9% for CAS and 3.2%±0.7% for CEA (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.11 to 3.21; P=0.02). For asymptomatic patients, the stroke and death rates were 2.5%±0.6% for CAS and 1.4%±0.5% for CEA (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.79 to 4.42; P=0.15). Rates were lower for those aged <80 years. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between CAS versus CEA by symptomatic status for the primary CREST end point. Periprocedural stroke and death rates were significantly lower for CEA in symptomatic patients. However, for both CAS and CEA, stroke and death rates were below or comparable to those of previous randomized trials and were within the complication thresholds suggested in current guidelines for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".