ReviewSeminars in vascular surgery2026
The contemporary role for carotid revascularization in older patients.
Review in Seminars in vascular surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vascular specialists are increasingly confronted with clinical dilemmas surrounding the optimal role for carotid revascularization in an elderly patient population. Specifically, while carotid revascularization has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke in appropriately selected patients, its application in elderly patients, particularly those who are asymptomatic, remains a focus of debate. This controversy stems largely from the exclusion of such older patients from the seminal trials that established the efficacy of revascularization over medical management. Furthermore, early studies have also highlighted concerns regarding elevated perioperative risk, prevalence of competing comorbidities, and limited life expectancy in this patient population, calling into question the marginal benefit of a revascularization procedure. However, more recent evidence suggests that with careful patient selection, elderly individuals can experience comparable outcomes to their younger counterparts. In particular, both carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization have demonstrated favorable safety and effectiveness profiles in octogenarians, and both appear to outperform transfemoral carotid artery stenting in terms of perioperative stroke/death risk. Importantly, contemporary risk assessment tools, including those incorporating frailty and anatomical complexity, highlight that age alone should likely not preclude intervention. Instead, these tools can be utilized to aid in performing an individualized and comprehensive risk assessment to inform shared decision making. In this review article, we will explore current controversies, supporting evidence, and important considerations when caring for older patients, specifically those over the age of 80 who are considering carotid revascularization.
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.