Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 545

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

Guidelines for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Multidisciplinary Consensus Statement From the Ad Hoc Committee, American Heart Association

Moore, Wesley S., Barnett, H.J.M., Beebe, Hugh G., Bernstein, Eugene F., Brener, Bruce J., Brott, Thomas, Caplan, Louis R., Day, Arthur, Goldstone, Jerry, Hobson, Robert W., Kempczinski, Richard F., Matchar, David B., Mayberg, Marc R., Nicolaides, Andrew N., Norris, John W., Ricotta, John J., Robertson, James T., Rutherford, Robert B., Thomas, David, Toole, James F., Trout, Hugh H., Wiebers, David O.·1995·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose Indications for carotid endarterectomy have engendered considerable debate among experts and have resulted in publication of retrospective reviews, natural history studies, audits of community practice, position papers, expert opinion statements, and finally prospective randomized trials. The American Heart Association assembled a group of experts in a multidisciplinary consensus conference to develop this statement. Methods A conference was held July 16-18, 1993, in Park City, Utah, that included recognized experts in neurology, neurosurgery, vascular surgery, and healthcare planning. A program of critical topics was developed, and each expert presented a talk and provided the chairman with a summary statement. From these summary statements a document was developed and edited onsite to achieve consensus before final revision. Results The first section of this document reviews the natural history, methods of patient evaluation, options for medical management, results of surgical management, data from position statements, and results to date of prospective randomized trials for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid artery disease. The second section divides 96 potential indications for carotid endarterectomy, based on surgical risk, into four categories: (1) Proven: This is the strongest indication for carotid endarterectomy; data are supported by results of prospective contemporary randomized trials. (2) Acceptable but not proven: a good indication for operation; supported by promising but not scientifically certain data. (3) Uncertain: Data are insufficient to define the risk/benefit ratio. (4) Proven inappropriate: Current data are adequate to show that the risk of surgery outweighs any benefit. Conclusions Indications for carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic good-risk patients with a surgeon whose surgical morbidity and mortality rate is less than 6% are as follows. (1) Proven : one or more TIAs in the past 6 months and carotid stenosis ≥ 70% or mild stroke within 6 months and a carotid stenosis ≥ 70%; (2) acceptable but not proven : TIAs within the past 6 months and a stenosis 50% to 69%, progressive stroke and a stenosis ≥ 70%, mild or moderate stroke in the past 6 months and a stenosis 50% to 69%, or carotid endarterectomy ipsilateral to TIAs and a stenosis ≥ 70% combined with required coronary artery bypass grafting; (3) uncertain : TIAs with a stenosis <50%, mild stroke and stenosis <50%, TIAs with a stenosis <70% combined with coronary artery bypass grafting, or symptomatic, acute carotid thrombosis; (4) proven inappropriate: moderate stroke with stenosis <50%, not on aspirin; single TIA, <50% stenosis, not on aspirin; high-risk patient with multiple TIAs, not on aspirin, stenosis <50%; high-risk patient, mild or moderate stroke, stenosis <50%, not on aspirin; global ischemic symptoms with stenosis <50%; acute dissection, asymptomatic on heparin. Indications for carotid endarterectomy in asymptomatic good-risk patients performed by a surgeon whose surgical morbidity and mortality rate is less than 3% are as follows. (1) Proven: none. (As this statement went to press, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke issued a clinical advisory stating that the Institute has halted the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) because of a clear benefit in favor of surgery for patients with carotid stenosis ≥60% as measured by diameter reduction. When the ACAS report is published, this indication will be recategorized as proven. (2) acceptable but not proven : stenosis >75% by linear diameter; (3) uncertain : stenosis >75% in a high-risk patient/surgeon (surgical morbidity and mortality rate >3%), combined carotid/coronary operations, or ulcerative lesions without hemodynamically significant stenosis; (4) proven inappropriate : operations with a combined stroke morbidity and mortality >5%.

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 · 10.1161/01.str.26.1.188

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 545

Metadata

Authors
Moore, W. S., Barnett, H. J. M., Beebe, H. G., Bernstein, E. F., Brener, B. J., Brott, T., Caplan, L. R., Day, A., Goldstone, J., Hobson, R. W., Kempczinski, R. F., Matchar, D. B., Mayberg, M. R., Nicolaides, A. N., Norris, J. W., Ricotta, J. J., Robertson, J. T., Rutherford, R. B., Thomas, D., Toole, J. F., Trout, H. H., & Wiebers, D. O.
Venue
Stroke
Published
1995-01
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
188-201
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2147226730
Cited by
545
References
1
FWCI
30.66
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: Guidelines for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Multidisciplinary Consensus Statement From the Ad Hoc Committee, American Heart Association. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.26.1.188
The paper
Moore, W. S., Barnett, H. J. M., Beebe, H. G., Bernstein, E. F., Brener, B. J., Brott, T., Caplan, L. R., Day, A., Goldstone, J., Hobson, R. W., Kempczinski, R. F., Matchar, D. B., Mayberg, M. R., Nicolaides, A. N., Norris, J. W., Ricotta, J. J., Robertson, J. T., Rutherford, R. B., Thomas, D., . . . Wiebers, D. O. (1995). Guidelines for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Multidisciplinary Consensus Statement From the Ad Hoc Committee, American Heart Association. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.26.1.188

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.