Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 629

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

Randomized Trial of Stent versus Surgery for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis

Open access
Rosenfield, Kenneth, Matsumura, Jon S., Chaturvedi, Seemant, Riles, Tom, Ansel, Gary M., Metzger, D. Chris, Wechsler, Lawrence, Jaff, Michael R., Gray, William·2016·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous clinical trials have suggested that carotid-artery stenting with a device to capture and remove emboli ("embolic protection") is an effective alternative to carotid endarterectomy in patients at average or high risk for surgical complications. METHODS: In this trial, we compared carotid-artery stenting with embolic protection and carotid endarterectomy in patients 79 years of age or younger who had severe carotid stenosis and were asymptomatic (i.e., had not had a stroke, transient ischemic attack, or amaurosis fugax in the 180 days before enrollment) and were not considered to be at high risk for surgical complications. The trial was designed to enroll 1658 patients but was halted early, after 1453 patients underwent randomization, because of slow enrollment. Patients were followed for up to 5 years. The primary composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the procedure or ipsilateral stroke within 1 year was tested at a noninferiority margin of 3 percentage points. RESULTS: Stenting was noninferior to endarterectomy with regard to the primary composite end point (event rate, 3.8% and 3.4%, respectively; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The rate of stroke or death within 30 days was 2.9% in the stenting group and 1.7% in the endarterectomy group (P=0.33). From 30 days to 5 years after the procedure, the rate of freedom from ipsilateral stroke was 97.8% in the stenting group and 97.3% in the endarterectomy group (P=0.51), and the overall survival rates were 87.1% and 89.4%, respectively (P=0.21). The cumulative 5-year rate of stroke-free survival was 93.1% in the stenting group and 94.7% in the endarterectomy group (P=0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving asymptomatic patients with severe carotid stenosis who were not at high risk for surgical complications, stenting was noninferior to endarterectomy with regard to the rate of the primary composite end point at 1 year. In analyses that included up to 5 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the study groups in the rates of non-procedure-related stroke, all stroke, and survival. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; ACT I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00106938.).

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/nejmoa1515706

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 629

Metadata

Authors
Rosenfield, K., Matsumura, J. S., Chaturvedi, S., Riles, T., Ansel, G. M., Metzger, D. C., Wechsler, L., Jaff, M. R., & Gray, W.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2016-03-17
Volume
374
Issue
11
Pages
1011-1020
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2329275711
Cited by
629
References
1
FWCI
67.53
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: Randomized Trial of Stent versus Surgery for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1515706
The paper
Rosenfield, K., Matsumura, J. S., Chaturvedi, S., Riles, T., Ansel, G. M., Metzger, D. C., Wechsler, L., Jaff, M. R., & Gray, W. (2016). Randomized Trial of Stent versus Surgery for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1515706

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.