Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,853

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Protected Carotid-Artery Stenting versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients

Open access
Yadav, Jay S., Wholey, Mark H., Kuntz, Richard E., Fayad, Pierre, Katzen, Barry T., Mishkel, Gregory J., Bajwa, Tanvir K., Whitlow, Patrick, Strickman, Neil E., Jaff, Michael R., Popma, Jeffrey J., Snead, David B., Cutlip, Donald E., Firth, Brian G., Ouriel, Kenneth·2004·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy is more effective than medical management in the prevention of stroke in patients with severe symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis. Stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is a less invasive revascularization strategy than endarterectomy in carotid-artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial comparing carotid-artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device to endarterectomy in 334 patients with coexisting conditions that potentially increased the risk posed by endarterectomy and who had either a symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis of at least 50 percent of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80 percent. The primary end point of the study was the cumulative incidence of a major cardiovascular event at 1 year--a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the intervention or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1 year. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that the less invasive strategy, stenting, was not inferior to endarterectomy. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 20 patients randomly assigned to undergo carotid-artery stenting with an emboli-protection device (cumulative incidence, 12.2 percent) and in 32 patients randomly assigned to undergo endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 20.1 percent; absolute difference, -7.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, -16.4 to 0.7 percentage points; P=0.004 for noninferiority, and P=0.053 for superiority). At one year, carotid revascularization was repeated in fewer patients who had received stents than in those who had undergone endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 0.6 percent vs. 4.3 percent; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe carotid-artery stenosis and coexisting conditions, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa040127

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 2,853

Metadata

Authors
Yadav, J. S., Wholey, M. H., Kuntz, R. E., Fayad, P., Katzen, B. T., Mishkel, G. J., Bajwa, T. K., Whitlow, P., Strickman, N. E., Jaff, M. R., Popma, J. J., Snead, D. B., Cutlip, D. E., Firth, B. G., & Ouriel, K.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2004-10-07
Volume
351
Issue
15
Pages
1493-1501
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2038169486
Cited by
2,853
References
1
FWCI
157.98
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: Protected Carotid-Artery Stenting versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa040127
The paper
Yadav, J. S., Wholey, M. H., Kuntz, R. E., Fayad, P., Katzen, B. T., Mishkel, G. J., Bajwa, T. K., Whitlow, P., Strickman, N. E., Jaff, M. R., Popma, J. J., Snead, D. B., Cutlip, D. E., Firth, B. G., & Ouriel, K. (2004). Protected Carotid-Artery Stenting versus Endarterectomy in High-Risk Patients. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa040127

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.