Carotid Stenting in Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: The Calgary Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although carotid endarterectomy is considered the 'gold standard' for standard risk symptomatic patients, the treatment of choice for asymptomatic patients remains controversial. Carotid stenting has demonstrated real-world outcomes consistent with established guidelines for carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic high-surgical risk patients in recent prospective multicenter trials. We describe our experience with asymptomatic patients who underwent carotid stenting at our center in a routine clinical setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients who underwent carotid angioplasty and stenting at the Foothills Medical Center, Calgary, Canada between 1997 and 2007. The qualifying events were categorized as symptomatic and asymptomatic. The procedures were performed by four experienced neurointerventionists. The primary outcome was stroke or death at 30-day follow- up. RESULTS: 243 patients underwent 255 carotid stenting procedures. Their ages ranged from 50 to 83 years; the mean age was 72.0 ± 9.3 years; 67(26.3%) were women. Forty one patients (16.1%) were asymptomatic; 214 patients (83.9%) were symptomatic. The patients in the asymptomatic group were significantly younger - 66.0 ± 8.8 years compared to patients in the symptomatic group 73.2 ± 8.9 years (p < 0.0001). Intraprocedurally one minor stroke (2.4%) occurred in the asymptomatic group. At 30-day follow-up, no deaths or further strokes were noted in the asymptomatic group; while eight deaths, six major and seven minor strokes occurred in the symptomatic group (p = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Carotid stenting appears to be a safe procedure in asymptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis in routine clinical settings as witnessed in this single center study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".