Carotid Stenting Versus Endarterectomy for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is no consensus on the comparative efficacy and safety of carotid artery stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. To evaluate CAS versus CEA in asymptomatic patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing CAS to CEA in asymptomatic patients using a pre-specified protocol. Two independent reviewers identified randomized controlled trials meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria, extracted relevant data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random effects models with inverse-variance weighting were used to estimate pooled risk ratios (RRs) comparing the incidences of periprocedural and long-term outcomes between CAS and CEA. RESULTS: We identified 11 reports of 5 randomized controlled trials for inclusion (n=3019) asymptomatic patients. The pooled incidences of any periprocedural stroke (RR, 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-3.40), periprocedural nondisabling stroke (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 0.98-3.89), and any periprocedural stroke or death (RR, 1.72; 95% CI, 0.95-3.11) trended toward an increased risk after CAS. We could not rule out clinically significant differences between treatments for long-term stroke (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.76-2.03) and the composite outcome of periprocedural stroke, death or myocardial infarction, or long-term ipsilateral stroke (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.70-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Although uncertainty surrounds the long-term outcomes of CAS versus CEA, the potential for increased risks of periprocedural stroke and periprocedural stroke or death with CAS suggests that CEA is the preferred option for the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".