Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32918282›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2020

Carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis.

Amaraporn Rerkasem, Saritphat Orrapin, Dominic Pj Howard, Kittipan Rerkasem

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06207643 (Conventional Vs. Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy Immediate and Short-Term Outcomes), which is not on this map. Cited by 46 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06207643 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Conventional Vs. Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy Immediate and Short-Term Outcomes

TypeinterventionalSponsorSohag UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled40ConditionsCarotid Stenosis, Carotid Atherosclerosis, Carotid Artery PlaqueArmscarotid endarterectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Impact of Manual Sustained Inflation vs Stepwise PEEP on Pulmonary and Cerebral Outcomes in Carotid Endarterectomy Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Amaraporn RerkasemResearch Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Saritphat OrrapinDivision of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University (Rangsit Campus), Pathum thani, Thailand.
Dominic Pj HowardCentre for Prevention of Stroke and Dementia, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kittipan RerkasemResearch Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office ETM/417
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke is the third leading cause of death and the most common cause of long-term disability. Severe narrowing (stenosis) of the carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. Surgical treatment (carotid endarterectomy) may reduce the risk of stroke, but carries a risk of operative complications. This is an update of a Cochrane Review, originally published in 1999, and most recently updated in 2017.

objectivesTo determine the balance of benefit versus risk of endarterectomy plus best medical management compared with best medical management alone, in people with a recent symptomatic carotid stenosis (i.e. transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or non-disabling stroke). SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal to October 2019. We also reviewed the reference lists of all relevant studies and abstract books from research proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carotid artery surgery plus best medical treatment with best medical treatment alone.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. We assessed the results and the quality of the evidence of the primary and secondary outcomes by the GRADE method, which classifies the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. MAIN

resultsWe included three trials involving 6343 participants. The trials differed in the methods of measuring carotid stenosis and in the definition of stroke. Using the primary electronic data files, we pooled and analysed individual patient data on 6092 participants (35,000 patient-years of follow-up), after reassessing the carotid angiograms and outcomes from all three trials, and redefining outcome events where necessary, to achieve comparability. Surgery increased the five-year risk of any stroke or operative death in participants with less than 30% stenosis (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.56; 2 studies, 1746 participants; high-quality evidence). Surgery decreased the five-year risk of any stroke or operative death in participants with 30% to 49% stenosis (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.19; 2 studies, 1429 participants; high-quality evidence), was of benefit in participants with 50% to 69% stenosis (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.94; 3 studies, 1549 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and was highly beneficial in participants with 70% to 99% stenosis without near-occlusion (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.67; 3 studies, 1095 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, surgery decreased the five-year risk of any stroke or operative death in participants with near-occlusions (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.53; 2 studies, 271 participants; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS'

conclusionsCarotid endarterectomy reduced the risk of recurrent stroke for people with significant stenosis. Endarterectomy might be of some benefit for participants with 50% to 69% symptomatic stenosis (moderate-quality evidence) and highly beneficial for those with 70% to 99% stenosis (moderate-quality evidence).

Indexed as

Endarterectomy, CarotidAdultAgedAge FactorsCarotid StenosisFemaleHumansIschemic Attack, TransientMalePostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRiskSex FactorsStrokeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID32918282
PMCPMC8536099

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.