Statins Are Associated With Better Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Statins have been associated with a reduction in mortality from noncardiac surgery. This study aimed to determine whether statin use on admission to hospital for carotid endarterectomy was associated with a reduction of in-hospital adverse outcomes. METHODS: Data describing patient characteristics, surgical indication, statin treatment, and in-hospital outcomes of death, ischemic stroke or death and cardiac outcomes were collected from a chart review of all patients (3360) undergoing carotid endarterectomy in Western Canada from January 2000 to December 2001. Outcomes of patients on statins versus those not on statins were compared using logistic regression to account for differences in patient characteristics, and propensity score methods to account for factors influencing patient allocation to statins. RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifteen of 2031 symptomatic patients and 665 of 1252 asymptomatic patients were on a statin at the time of hospital admission. Statin use by symptomatic patients was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality and in-hospital ischemic stroke or death, but not in-hospital cardiac outcomes (adjusted odds ratio 0.25 [CI, 0.07 to 0.90], 0.55 [CI, 0.32 to 0.95], 0.87 [CI, 0.49 to 1.54], respectively). The improvement in outcomes was robust when tested using propensity score matching. This association was not seen in asymptomatic patients on statins (adjusted odds ratio, in-hospital mortality 0.54 [CI, 0.13 to 2.24]; in-hospital ischemic stroke or death 1.34 [CI, 0.61 to 2.93]; in-hospital cardiac outcomes 1.37 [CI, 0.73 to 2.58]). CONCLUSIONS: These findings are suggestive of a protective effect of statin therapy in symptomatic patients pre-treated at the time of carotid endarterectomy, though this needs confirmation in a randomized controlled trial.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".