ArticlePostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2026
CREST-2 findings are unchanged using an aggregated control group for the CAS and CEA trial.
Article in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endovascular treatment strategies in highly-calcified carotid stenoses.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: CREST-2 comprised two parallel observer-blinded randomised controlled trials evaluating carotid revascularisation (carotid artery stenting - CAS, or carotid endarterectomy - CEA) plus intensive medical management (IMM; supervised pharmacologic therapy and risk factor control and coached lifestyle modification) versus IMM alone in patients with asymptomatic ≥ 70% carotid stenosis. Each trial carried an independent IMM control arm. The primary endpoint (peri-procedural stroke/death or ipsilateral ischaemic stroke thereafter by 4 years) occurred, in the CAS trial, in 2.8% vs. 6.0% (IMM + CAS vs. IMM; Aim: To test the hypothesis that the divergent control-arm event rates - rather than true differential efficacy of the interventional treatments - could underlie the CAS efficacy and CEA failure in CREST-2, we used a single combined control group as a balanced reference for both interventional treatment arms. Material and methods: An Aggregated Control Group of IMM-only ( Results: In the Aggregated Control Group, the primary endpoint occurred in 5.65% of patients (95% CI: 4.47-7.12). Absolute risk reduction with CAS + IMM ( Conclusions: Aggregated Control Group analysis of CREST-2, minimising control arms biases, confirmed CAS efficacy (50.4% relative risk reduction) and maintained failure of CEA in primary prevention of ipsilateral stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis under intensive medical management. This refutes control-arm disparity as an explanation for the divergent outcomes with CAS vs. CEA.
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.