The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Immediate and Late Clinical Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A 5-Year Prospective Analysis
Abstract
Background —Carotid stenting is a less invasive percutaneous procedure than carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of carotid stenosis. Reports suggest that it can be performed with periprocedural complication rates similar to those of carotid endarterectomy. The purpose of this study was to determine short- and long-term outcomes in the largest prospective cohort of carotid stenting patients. Methods and Results —This study followed 528 consecutive patients (604 hemispheres/arteries) undergoing carotid stenting. There was a 0.6% (n=3) fatal stroke rate and 1% (n=5) nonstroke death rate at 30 days. The major stroke rate was 1% (n=6), and the minor stroke rate was 4.8% (n=29). The overall 30-day stroke and death rate was 7.4% (n=43). Over the 5-year study period, the 30-day minor stroke rate improved from 7.1% (n=7) for the first year to 3.1% (n=5) for the fifth year ( P <0.05 for trend). The best predictor of 30-day stroke and death was age ≥80 years. After the 30-day period, the incidence of fatal and nonfatal stroke was 3.2% (n=31). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, the 3-year freedom from ipsilateral or fatal stroke was 92±1%. Conclusions —Experience from a single group of operators demonstrates that carotid stenting can be performed with an acceptable 30-day complication rate. Late follow-up also demonstrates a low rate of fatal and nonfatal stroke. These results suggest that carotid stenting may be comparable to carotid endarterectomy, and it underscores the clinical equipoise and premise for the National Institute of Health–supported, randomized Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stent Trial comparing carotid stenting with 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.
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
Beneficial Effect of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients with High-Grade Carotid Stenosis
(1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199108153250701 · Cited by 8,368
Cited by
Diabetes and Atherosclerosis: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Management
Beckman, J. A., Creager, M. A., & Libby, P. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.19.2570 · Cited by 2,724
Kastrup, A., Gröschel, K., Krapf, H., Brehm, B. R., Dichgans, J., & Schulz, J. B. (2003) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/01.str.0000058160.53040.5f · Cited by 567
Updated review of the global carotid artery stent registry
Wholey, M. H., Al‐Mubarek, N., & Wholey, M. H. (2003) · Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · doi:10.1002/ccd.10645 · Cited by 462
Brott, T. G., Halperin, J. L., Abbara, S., Bacharach, J. M., Barr, J. D., Bush, R. L., Cates, C. U., Creager, M. A., Fowler, S. B., Friday, G., et al. (2011) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.11.006 · Cited by 447
Metadata
- Authors
- Roubin, G. S., New, G., Iyer, S. S., Vitek, J. J., Al-Mubarak, N., Liu, M. W., Yadav, J., Gomez, C., & Kuntz, R. E.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2001-01-30
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 532-537
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2076822791
- Cited by
- 713
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 60.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Immediate and Late Clinical Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A 5-Year Prospective Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.103.4.532
- The paper
- Roubin, G. S., New, G., Iyer, S. S., Vitek, J. J., Al-Mubarak, N., Liu, M. W., Yadav, J., Gomez, C., & Kuntz, R. E. (2001). Immediate and Late Clinical Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting in Patients With Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A 5-Year Prospective Analysis. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.103.4.532
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.