Carotid Revascularization in the Modern Era: A Comparative Review of Carotid Endarterectomy, Carotid Angioplasty and Stenting, and Transcarotid Artery Revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Carotid artery stenosis is a major cause of acute ischemic stroke, accounting for approximately 15% of cases. Although optimal medical therapy remains the cornerstone of management, current guidelines recommend consideration of surgical intervention for symptomatic patients with ≥50% stenosis and asymptomatic patients with ≥70% stenosis. Extensive evidence supports carotid endarterectomy (CEA) as the gold standard procedure, whereas transfemoral carotid angioplasty and stenting (TF-CAS) and transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) offer safe alternatives for patients with high surgical risk. Emerging data suggest that TCAR provides safety and efficacy profiles comparable to CEA and superior to TF-CAS in select patients. Considering these findings, selecting an appropriate revascularization strategy should rely on a multidisciplinary, individualized risk-benefit assessment. This article aims to provide a comparative review of the latest evidence on clinical indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes for current carotid revascularization strategies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".