ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
DSA Versus Noninvasive Imaging in Revascularization Referral for Recently Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent revascularization guidelines for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were established based on randomized studies where stenosis was assessed with digital subtraction angiography. Pursuing revascularization in clinical practice is typically based on noninvasive imaging. We aimed to assess whether discrepancies exist between these 2 diagnostic methods when patients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis referred for carotid revascularization based on noninvasive imaging, subsequently underwent DSA.
methodsA retrospective study of patients presenting at 3 centers in the United States and Türkiye who routinely performed digitally subtracted angiography prior to revascularization between 2019 and 2024 was performed. Consecutive patients with acute ischemic events and concern for symptomatic ipsilateral carotid artery stenosis with moderate to severe stenosis on noninvasive imaging referred for digitally subtracted angiography were selected for inclusion. Digitally subtracted angiography was performed for intended carotid artery stenting in most cases as the first-line treatment method; patients referred for carotid endarterectomy who underwent preprocedure digitally subtracted angiography were also included. Exclusion criteria included prior carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting or the presence of intraluminal thrombus precluding immediate revascularization. The primary outcome was the rate of disagreement between noninvasive imaging and digitally subtracted angiography.
resultsA total of 463 patients (65% males) were included, with a median age of 69 years. Disagreement regarding qualifying lesion severity for revascularization between noninvasive imaging and digitally subtracted angiography was found in 22.7% of patients. There was a significant difference in the proportion of immediate revascularization between the 2 cohorts (
conclusionThis study demonstrates that almost 1 in 4 patients referred for carotid revascularization based on noninvasive imaging are found to have insufficient stenosis on digitally subtracted angiography to support the decision to proceed with revascularization according to established stenosis severity thresholds.
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.