The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Association of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting With Stroke or Death Among Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Several trials have observed higher rates of perioperative stroke following transfemoral carotid artery stenting compared with carotid endarterectomy. Transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal was recently introduced for carotid stenting. This technique was developed to decrease stroke risk seen with the transfemoral approach; however, its outcomes, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, are not well characterized. Objective: To compare outcomes associated with transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory propensity score-matched analysis of prospectively collected data from the Vascular Quality Initiative Transcarotid Artery Surveillance Project and Carotid Stent Registry of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients in the United States and Canada undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization and transfemoral carotid artery stenting for carotid artery stenosis, from September 2016 to April 2019. The final date for follow-up was May 29, 2019. Exposures: Transcarotid artery revascularization vs transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included a composite end point of in-hospital stroke or death, stroke, death, myocardial infarction, as well as ipsilateral stroke or death at 1 year. In-hospital stroke was defined as ipsilateral or contralateral, cortical or vertebrobasilar, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Death was all-cause mortality. Results: During the study period, 5251 patients underwent transcarotid artery revascularization and 6640 patients underwent transfemoral carotid artery stenting. After matching, 3286 pairs of patients who underwent transcarotid artery revascularization or transfemoral carotid artery stenting were identified (transcarotid approach: mean [SD] age, 71.7 [9.8] years; 35.7% women; transfemoral approach: mean [SD] age, 71.6 [9.3] years; 35.1% women). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 3.1%; absolute difference, -1.52% [95% CI, -2.29% to -0.75%]; relative risk [RR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.72]; P < .001), stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; absolute difference, -1.10% [95% CI, -1.79% to -0.41%]; RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.79]; P = .001), and death (0.4% vs 1.0%; absolute difference, -0.55% [95% CI, -0.98% to -0.11%]; RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.82]; P = .008). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of perioperative myocardial infarction between the 2 cohorts (0.2% for transcarotid vs 0.3% for the transfemoral approach; absolute difference, -0.09% [95% CI, -0.37% to 0.19%]; RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84]; P = .47). At 1 year using Kaplan-Meier life-table estimation, the transcarotid approach was associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral stroke or death (5.1% vs 9.6%; hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66]; P < .001). Transcarotid artery revascularization was associated with higher risk of access site complication resulting in interventional treatment (1.3% vs 0.8%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, -0.01% to 1.04%]; RR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61]; P = .04), whereas transfemoral carotid artery stenting was associated with more radiation (median fluoroscopy time, 5 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 3 to 7] vs 16 minutes [IQR, 11 to 23]; P < .001) and more contrast (median contrast used, 30 mL [IQR, 20 to 45] vs 80 mL [IQR, 55 to 122]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing treatment for carotid stenosis, transcarotid artery revascularization, compared with transfemoral carotid artery stenting, was significantly associated with a lower risk of stroke or death.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Stenting versus Endarterectomy for Treatment of Carotid-Artery Stenosis
Brott, T. G., Hobson, R. W., Howard, G., Roubin, G. S., Clark, W. M., Brooks, W., Mackey, A., Hill, M. D., Leimgruber, P. P., Sheffet, A. J., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0912321 · Cited by 3,012
Endarterectomy versus Stenting in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis
Mas, J.-L., Chatellier, G., Beyssen, B., Branchereau, A., Moulin, T., Becquemin, J.-P., Larrue, V., Lièvre, M., Leys, D., Bonneville, J.-F., et al. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa061752 · Cited by 1,578
Higgins (2002) · doi:10.1002/(issn)1097-0258 · Cited by 1,248
Long-Term Results of Stenting versus Endarterectomy for Carotid-Artery Stenosis
Brott, T. G., Howard, G., Roubin, G. S., Meschia, J. F., Mackey, A., Brooks, W., Moore, W. S., Hill, M. D., Mantese, V. A., Clark, W. M., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1505215 · Cited by 725
Randomized Trial of Stent versus Surgery for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis
Rosenfield, K., Matsumura, J. S., Chaturvedi, S., Riles, T., Ansel, G. M., Metzger, D. C., Wechsler, L., Jaff, M. R., & Gray, W. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1515706 · Cited by 629
Bonati, L. H., Dobson, J., Featherstone, R. L., Ederle, J., van der Worp, H. B., de Borst, G. J., Mali, W. P. T. M., Beard, J. D., Cleveland, T., Engelter, S. T., et al. (2015) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61184-3 · Cited by 550
The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative
Cronenwett, J. L., Kraiss, L. W., & Cambria, R. P. (2012) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2012.03.016 · Cited by 465
Self-citationMalas, M. B., Dakour-Aridi, H., Wang, G. J., Kashyap, V. S., Motaganahalli, R. L., Eldrup-Jorgensen, J., Cronenwett, J. L., & Schermerhorn, M. L. (2019) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2018.05.011 · Cited by 218
Self-citationA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials of carotid endarterectomy vs stenting
Murad, M. H., Shahrour, A., Shah, N. D., Montori, V. M., & Ricotta, J. J. (2011) · Journal of Vascular Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.10.101 · Cited by 155
Cited by
Kleindorfer, D. O., Towfighi, A., Chaturvedi, S., Cockroft, K. M., Gutierrez, J., Lombardi-Hill, D., Kamel, H., Kernan, W. N., Kittner, S. J., Leira, E. C., et al. (2021) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000375 · Cited by 3,237
2024 ESC Guidelines for the management of peripheral arterial and aortic diseases
Mazzolai, L., Teixido-Tura, G., Lanzi, S., Boc, V., Bossone, E., Brodmann, M., Bura-Rivière, A., De Backer, J., Deglise, S., Della Corte, A., et al. (2024) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae179 · Cited by 993
Clinical utility of polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease
Klarin, D., & Natarajan, P. (2022) · Nature Reviews Cardiology · doi:10.1038/s41569-021-00638-w · Cited by 152
Metadata
- Authors
- Schermerhorn, M. L., Liang, P., Eldrup-Jorgensen, J., Cronenwett, J. L., Nolan, B. W., Kashyap, V. S., Wang, G. J., Motaganahalli, R. L., & Malas, M. B.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-12-17
- Volume
- 322
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 2313
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2996385992
- Cited by
- 269
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 21.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Association of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting With Stroke or Death Among Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2019.18441
- The paper
- Schermerhorn, M. L., Liang, P., Eldrup-Jorgensen, J., Cronenwett, J. L., Nolan, B. W., Kashyap, V. S., Wang, G. J., Motaganahalli, R. L., & Malas, M. B. (2019). Association of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting With Stroke or Death Among Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.18441
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.