ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2026
Modern Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of CREST-2, SPACE-2, and ECST-2.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent randomized trials (CREST-2, SPACE-2, and ECST-2) have compared carotid revascularization (carotid endarterectomy [CEA] or carotid artery stenting [CAS]) plus contemporary medical therapy (CMT) versus CMT alone in asymptomatic carotid stenosis. ECST-2 included both asymptomatic and low-risk symptomatic patients, introducing clinical heterogeneity. Individual trials reported low event rates and limited statistical power.
objectiveTo evaluate whether carotid revascularization reduces long-term ipsilateral stroke (> 30 days) compared with CMT alone and to assess periprocedural complications.
methodsPhase 3/4 randomized controlled trials published after 2020 were included. The primary outcome was long-term ipsilateral stroke excluding periprocedural events. Periprocedural complications (30-day stroke, myocardial infarction, or death) were analyzed separately. Random-effects models were used. Subgroup analyses by modality (CEA vs. CAS) included CREST-2 and SPACE-2. Sensitivity analyses excluding ECST-2 and using split-control methodology for SPACE-2 were performed.
resultsThree trials (5 arms; 3438 patients) were included. Median follow-up was 4.0 years in CREST-2, 5.0 years in SPACE-2, and 2.0 years in ECST-2. In the primary pooled analysis including ECST-2, revascularization showed a nonsignificant reduction in long-term ipsilateral stroke (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.21-1.29; p = 0.16; I
conclusionThe primary pooled analysis was inconclusive and demonstrated substantial heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses restricted to purely asymptomatic populations suggested that carotid revascularization may reduce long-term ipsilateral stroke but increase periprocedural complications. Contemporary medical therapy remains the foundation of management for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, while revascularization should be reserved for carefully selected patients after individualized risk assessment and shared decision-making.
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.