ReviewCureus2026
Carotid Endarterectomy in the Era of Stenting and Optimal Medical Therapy.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular events, including stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI), remain the leading causes of death worldwide. This study aimed to review the scientific literature evaluating carotid endarterectomy as a first-line intervention for carotid artery disease. A literature review was conducted, including 40 articles published between 1977 and 2025, retrieved from Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Google Scholar, and MEDLINE (PubMed). Patients with carotid atherosclerotic disease should undergo individualized stroke risk assessment using validated imaging modalities to guide treatment selection. This review aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the contemporary management of carotid artery stenosis. A structured review of 40 studies published between 1977 and 2025 was conducted.. The analyzed literature demonstrates that CEA provides a clear benefit in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis ≥70%, and selected patients with 50-69% stenosis, when performed in experienced centers with low perioperative risk, in accordance with current European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines. In contrast, for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, recent evidence from the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial-2 (CREST-2) era highlights the critical role of optimized medical therapy, with revascularization reserved for carefully selected high-risk patients. In this population, CEA should be considered only when the procedural risk is low and the life expectancy is sufficient to derive long-term benefit. In conclusion, CEA remains an effective intervention for stroke prevention in appropriately selected patients, particularly those with symptomatic disease, while contemporary management increasingly emphasizes individualized decision-making and aggressive medical therapy, especially in asymptomatic patients.
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.