Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41898320›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2026

Reconsidering Carotid Artery Stenting for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis in the Era of Endovascular Evolution.

Chloe DeYoung, Brandon Lucke-Wold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Chloe DeYoungCollege of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8506-7631
Brandon Lucke-WoldUF Health Department of Neurosurgery, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6577-4080

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Management strategies in asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis are largely centered on intensive medical management, with carotid revascularization via endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting being reserved for select patients. This decision may be based on stenosis severity, perioperative risk, and patient preference. Current guidelines emphasize shared decision-making for patients with severe (>70%) stenosis, informed by prior trial data that does not demonstrate superiority of revascularization over independent medical therapy. Other studies more specifically recommend carotid endarterectomy over carotid artery stenting for asymptomatic patients with >60% stenosis. However, these studies are limited by poor statistical power. Recent findings in the CREST-2 trial have challenged this discussion of medical management as an independent primary course of action. The carotid artery stenting arm demonstrated significant long-term reduction in ipsilateral ischemic stroke compared to medical therapy alone. In this perspective, we argue that this new evidence supports a renewed role for carotid artery stenting in carefully selected patients with severe asymptomatic carotid artery stenting.

Indexed as

carotid artery stenosisendovascular neurosurgerystenting

Identifiers

PMID41898320
PMCPMC13023519

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.