ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Management and Treatment of Carotid Stenosis: Overview of Therapeutic Possibilities and Comparison Between Interventional Radiology, Surgery and Hybrid Procedure.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative genetic and expression profiling prioritizesFrontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Predictive value of the product term BRI × carotid plaque thickness for stroke and transient ischemic attack: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carotid stenosis is a common pathology in clinical practice and unfortunately carries a high risk of serious cerebrovascular events. The early recognition of carotid plaque and, consequently, a careful analysis by means of multimodal imaging are the necessary steps to undertake a correct management pathway, aimed at preventing or, if not possible, reducing the risk of atherogenic phenomena responsible for cerebral infarction. In particular, the presence or absence of clinical symptoms, understood as the occurrence of events such as TIAs in the last 6 months, non-disabling strokes or repeated episodes of amaurosis fugax, and the degree of carotid stenosis, are certainly the most studied parameters, and as reported by several international guidelines, can lead to the best therapeutic strategy: whether to rely on conservative medical therapy or to resort to mechanical revascularization of the carotid stenosis. According to the recommendations of the European Society of Vascular Surgery, mechanical revascularization is recommended for stenosis > 50% in symptomatic patients and stenosis > 60% in asymptomatic patients. In contrast, the latest findings on plaque vulnerability have focused attention on individual patient characteristics and clinical comorbidities that may be responsible for plaque inflammation and should therefore be taken into consideration to decide if revascularization treatment is needed even in those subjects who present stenosis with less degree than reported as critical value. Moreover, further radiological investigations are fundamental to finding the presence of entities such as plaque ulceration, plaque neo-vascularization, fibrous caps, and intraplaque lipid core that are responsible for increased vulnerability. Medical therapy involves interventions aimed at eliminating cardiovascular risk factors by administering drugs that control the comorbidities responsible for worsening carotid stenosis. Recent studies are also evaluating the effectiveness of new plaque-modifying drugs or targeted anti-inflammatory agents in reducing the risk of plaque development and complications. Revascularization therapies, on the other hand, include surgery (CEA), the endovascular technique (CAS), and a new hybrid technique (TCAR): they are all valid alternatives for the treatment of carotid stenosis, each with specific technical difficulties, but on the whole with comparable safety profiles and risk rates of postoperative complications, although some recent emergencies have focused attention on possible short- and long-term gender-dependent outcome differences. The aim of this manuscript is to present the state of the art in the management of patients with carotid stenosis and to take a closer look at revascularization options. In our opinion, the choice of one strategy over another should therefore depend on gender, anatomical features of the patient, preoperative comorbidities, and last but not least, the experience of the center and the multidisciplinary team involved in the management of the patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.