Carotid Disease — Symptomatic 70–99% Endarterectomy Benefit, 2-Week Timing, the Asymptomatic Three-Era Split, and CEA-versus-Stent Age Logic

A 68-year-old man with a left hemispheric transient ischaemic attack 8 days ago and a 75% symptomatic stenosis, a 71-year-old woman with an asymptomatic 70% bruit found on workup for cataract surgery, and a 76-year-old man with a recent minor stroke and an 80% stenosis who fears the knife. One needs an endarterectomy within days with NASCET-ECST numbers, one needs the asymptomatic three-era story from ACAS through CREST-2 with the under-3% perioperative condition, and one needs the age-70 stenting rule with CREST-ICSS-EVA honesty. The examiner will watch you define symptomatic by the 120-day ticket, band the stenosis, hold the 2-week line, choose endarterectomy versus stent by age and risk, and counsel cranial-nerve and hyperperfusion vigilance — with every number taken from the papers named beside it.^{[1][5][4][20][29]}

Overview & Definition — the 120-day ticket, the 70% line, and the symptom split

Symptomatic carotid disease enters the trial record through a recent ipsilateral event: a hemispheric or retinal transient ischaemic attack or a nondisabling stroke within the 120 days before entry, with 70 to 99 percent stenosis in the symptomatic artery.^[1] The European entry ticket reads the same in different words — a carotid-territory non-disabling ischaemic stroke, transient ischaemic attack, or retinal infarct with a stenotic lesion in the relevant ipsilateral artery.^[2] Asymptomatic disease is the mirror image: 60% or greater diameter reduction with no recent neurological symptom (ACAS), or substantial narrowing without recent stroke or transient ischaemia followed for years (ACST).^[5][6] The strategic arc fits one sentence: symptomatic 70–99% disease is operated within 2 weeks, moderate disease is managed medically, asymptomatic disease is selected by perioperative risk against modern medical-therapy baselines, and the endarterectomy-versus-stent choice turns on age and surgical risk.^[4][9][20]

Classification — three symptomatic bands, one asymptomatic line, one method rule

• Severe symptomatic 70–99%: operate. The European severe stratum (778 patients) pays 7.5% 30-day stroke-or-death then collects a sixfold ipsilateral-stroke reduction (2.8 vs 16.8% at 3 years).^[2]
• Moderate symptomatic 30–69%: medicine for most. Across 1599 patients in 97 hospitals, surgery buys no benefit inside 4–5 years at 50–69% or 6–7 years at 30–49% — endarterectomy is not indicated for most, possibly all, of these patients.^[3]
• Mild symptomatic 0–29%: do not operate. In 374 patients the 3-year ipsilateral risk is small without surgery, so early operative risk outweighs any benefit.^[2]
• Asymptomatic 60%-plus: select, never reflex. Benefit exists only where perioperative morbidity and mortality sit below 3% with aggressive risk-factor management — the ACAS condition that every later asymptomatic result inherits.^[5]
• The method rule. Angiographic stenosis in this set is NASCET-method stenosis, and duplex cut points below are calibrated to that method — never convert a percentage between NASCET and ECST denominators.^[25][26]

Each band answers a different viva question — severity decides whether surgery helps, symptoms decide which trial applies, and timing decides how much help remains.^[1][4]

Populations & Denominators — the trial counts that frame every decision

The symptomatic founders randomise at scale: NASCET reports 659 high-grade patients (331 medical, 328 surgical) across 50 North American centres; ECST randomises 2518 with nearly 3 years of mean follow-up; the moderate stratum adds 1599; and the pooled timing analysis follows 5893 patients over 33000 patient-years.^[1][2][3][4] The asymptomatic sequence runs ACAS 1662, ACST 3120 across 126 centres in 30 countries, ACT-1 1453 randomised before slow enrolment stopped it, CREST-2 1245 plus 1240 across 155 centres in five countries, SPACE-2 513 of 3640 planned, and ECST-2 429 low-to-intermediate-risk patients.^{[5][6][8][9][10][11]} The device trials contribute CREST 2502, ICSS 1713, EVA-3S 527, SPACE 1200, CAVATAS 504, the age-pooled 3433, SAPPHIRE 334 high-risk patients, and GALA 3526 across 95 centres in 24 countries.^{[12][14][15][17][19][20][21][22]}

Clinical Presentation — TIA, minor stroke, amaurosis, bruit, near-occlusion

The symptomatic patient declares through the ipsilateral territory: hemispheric transient ischaemia, retinal transient ischaemia (amaurosis fugax), or a nondisabling stroke within the preceding 120 days — the NASCET ticket that all symptomatic benefit hangs from.^[1] The European description adds the retinal infarct and the non-disabling ischaemic stroke as equivalent qualifying events with an ipsilateral stenotic lesion.^[2] The asymptomatic patient declares through silence: a 60%-plus stenosis with no recent symptom, found by bruit or incidental imaging — the ACAS population, whose 5-year medically treated ipsilateral risk runs 11.0%.^[5] Near-occlusion declares through collapse rather than percentage: a string-like or near-occluded lumen where the medically treated 1-month stroke risk is only 1.7%, so presentation buys planning time rather than a midnight operation.^[27] The hyperperfusion prodrome declares early after revascularisation — headache, hypertension, seizure or focal deficit at a median 12 hours — and nearly half of hyperperfusion cases declare further into stroke.^[31]

Differential Diagnosis — symptom status first, bands second, mimics last

Split recently symptomatic (120-day ticket, band the stenosis, time the operation) from asymptomatic (quantify stenosis, estimate perioperative risk, compare against modern medical baselines) from near-occlusion (plan without panic).^[1][5][27] Split severe symptomatic disease (operate) from moderate disease (medicine for most) from mild disease (never operate) before touching the consent form.^[2][3] Split atherosclerotic stenosis from the excluded mimics — complete occlusion, non-atherosclerotic disease and disabling stroke sit outside these trials' entry tickets, so their numbers do not transfer.^[1][8] Split the young symptomatic patient (stent and surgery tie) from the 70-plus patient (surgery doubles its safety margin over stenting) before offering a wire.^[20]

Name the category aloud before ordering the scan — the viva rewards the candidate who separates what severity decides from what only timing, age or perioperative risk decides.^[4][20]

Clinical & Bedside Assessment — event, side, stenosis, risk

Anchor the assessment on three facts: which hemisphere or eye declared itself and when, which carotid is ipsilateral, and what the stenosis measures by the NASCET method.^[1][25] Date the event precisely — benefit concentrates inside 2 weeks and decays so fast that randomisation after 12 weeks needs 125 operations per stroke prevented.^[4] Grade surgical risk explicitly — the asymptomatic benefit exists only where perioperative stroke-or-death sits below 3%, and the high-risk lane (SAPPHIRE entry: symptomatic 50%+ or asymptomatic 80%+ with risky comorbidity) redirects toward protected stenting.^[5][21] Examine the cranial nerves before and after every endarterectomy — specialist examination finds motor injuries in 6.9% at discharge, most resolve, and urgent, redo, long-clamp and haematoma cases predict them.^[29] Measure pressure early and often after revascularisation — hyperperfusion is a first-half-day disease.^[31]

Investigations — duplex by NASCET numbers, angio to confirm

Screen and grade with duplex calibrated to the NASCET method: peak systolic velocity above 210 cm/s with end-diastolic velocity above 70 cm/s and an internal-to-common ratio above 3.0 marks 70%-or-greater stenosis at 94% sensitivity.^[25] Apply the SRU consensus cut points the same way: a peak velocity of 125 cm/s is the most sensitive marker of 50% disease and 230 cm/s the most specific marker of 70% disease, both graded by the NASCET method across nine studies.^[26] Confirm the symptomatic band on angiography before booking — the operative trials randomised on angiographic stenosis (NASCET strata 30–69 and 70–99; ECST prerandomisation bands), so the scan that decides should speak the trial language.^[1][2] State the honesty the examiner probes: no keeper abstract converts percentages between NASCET and ECST denominators, so report the method beside every number rather than translating.^[25][26]

Management — Symptomatic: operate the severe early, spare the moderate

Give NASCET exactly: 659 high-grade patients — any ipsilateral stroke 26 vs 9% at 2 years (absolute reduction 17%), major or fatal 13.1 vs 2.5% (reduction 10.6%) — endarterectomy highly beneficial for recent TIA or nondisabling stroke with 70–99% disease.^[1] Give ECST-severe exactly: 778 patients — 7.5% stroke-or-death within 30 days of surgery, then 2.8 vs 16.8% ipsilateral ischaemic stroke at 3 years with total risk 12.3 vs 21.9%.^[2] Spare the moderate stratum exactly: 1599 patients, stroke-free life expectancy shorter with surgery, no benefit inside 4–5 years at 50–69% or 6–7 years at 30–49%.^[3] Time it by Rothwell exactly: pooled 5893 patients — greatest benefit in men, the 75-plus patient, and randomisation within 2 weeks; numbers-needed-to-treat of 9 versus 36 by sex, 5 versus 18 by age, and 5 within 2 weeks versus 125 after 12 weeks — ideally operate within 2 weeks of last symptoms.^[4] Expedite without fear exactly: across 232952 symptomatic patients, endarterectomy within 2 days carries 1.4% 30-day stroke against 1.8% at 3–14 days with no significant difference — do not delay the operation to be safe.^[33]

The resolution is the viva sentence: a symptomatic 70–99% stenosis gets an endarterectomy within 2 weeks; a 30–69% stenosis gets best medical management; and delay converts one of surgery's best numbers-needed-to-treat into one of its worst.^[1][3][4]

Management — Asymptomatic: three eras, one honest split

Give the founding era exactly: ACAS randomises 1662 patients at 60%-plus stenosis — aggregate 5-year ipsilateral-stroke-plus-perioperative risk 5.1 vs 11.0% (53% reduction) over a median 2.7 years — valid only with under-3% perioperative risk added to aspirin and risk-factor management.^[5] Give ACST exactly: 3120 patients (half operated by 1 month, 88% by 1 year, against 4%-per-year deferral) — 30-day stroke-or-death 3.1%, net 5-year all-stroke risk 6.4 vs 11.8%, fatal-or-disabling 3.5 vs 6.1% — extended by ACST-1 to 4.1 vs 10.0% at 5 years and 10.8 vs 16.9% at 10 years with a steady 3.0% perioperative price.^[6][7] Give ACT-1 exactly: standard-risk patients 79 or younger with 180-day symptom freedom — halted at 1453 of 1658 planned — primary composite 3.8 vs 3.4% noninferior, 30-day stroke-or-death 2.9 vs 1.7%, and 5-year ipsilateral-stroke freedom 97.8 vs 97.3%.^[8] Give the modern split exactly: CREST-2 randomises high-grade 70%-plus asymptomatic disease against intensive medical management — the stenting trial (1245 patients) wins 6.0 vs 2.8% at 4 years (P=0.02) while the endarterectomy trial (1240 patients) ties 5.3 vs 3.7% (P=0.24).^[9] Give the caution exactly: SPACE-2 randomises 513 of 3640 planned (2.5 vs 4.4 vs 3.1% with hazard ratios tied and wide) and ECST-2 interim reports a win ratio of 1.01 at 2 years in low-to-intermediate-risk disease — underpowered and interim, never equivalence proof.^[10][11]

The counselling resolution: quote the founding gains with the under-3% condition attached, present CREST-2 as a stent-wins/endarterectomy-ties split against modern therapy, and label SPACE-2 and ECST-2 as reasons to wait for 5-year data rather than reasons to abandon selection.^{[5][9][10][11]}

Management — CEA versus CAS: five trials and the age-70 rule

Give CREST exactly: 2502 symptomatic-or-asymptomatic patients over median 2.5 years — 4-year primary 7.2 vs 6.8% tied (HR 1.11); periprocedural stroke 4.1 vs 2.3% favouring surgery against MI 1.1 vs 2.3% favouring stenting; 4-year stroke-or-death 6.4 vs 4.7% (HR 1.50) — with 10-year primary 11.8 vs 9.9% tied and postprocedural ipsilateral stroke 6.9 vs 5.6% tied.^[12][13] Give ICSS exactly: 1713 recently symptomatic patients — 120-day stroke/death/MI 8.5 vs 5.2% (HR 1.69) with disabling stroke-or-death tied, and cranial palsy in 1 stented versus 45 operated patients.^[14] Give EVA-3S exactly: 527 patients at 60%-plus symptomatic stenosis, stopped early — 30-day any stroke-or-death 3.9 vs 9.6% (RR 2.5); 4-year periprocedural-plus-ipsilateral 6.2 vs 11.1% (HR 1.97); long-term 5-year 6.3 vs 11.0% (HR 1.85) fading to 10-year 7.6 vs 11.5% (HR 1.70, ns) — every gap periprocedural-driven with post-period ipsilateral risk low and tied.^[15][16][18] Give SPACE exactly: 1200 patients within 180 days of TIA or moderate stroke — 30-day death-or-ipsilateral-stroke 6.84 vs 6.34% with non-inferiority failed (one-sided p=0.09) — a near-tie that proves nothing about equivalence.^[17] Give CAVATAS exactly: 504 patients (three-quarters balloon-only endovascular) — 30-day disabling stroke-or-death tied 6.4 vs 5.9%; cranial neuropathy 8.7% surgery versus none endovascular; 1-year severe restenosis 14 vs 4%.^[19] Apply the age rule exactly: pooled 3433 patients at 120 days — 8.9 vs 5.8% overall (RR 1.53); under 70 the arms tie at 5.8 vs 5.7% (RR 1.00) while at 70-plus stenting doubles the risk at 12.0 vs 5.9% (RR 2.04) — endarterectomy is safer with age.^[20]

The choosing resolution: offer either modality under 70, favour endarterectomy at 70-plus, reserve stenting for high surgical risk with embolic protection (SAPPHIRE: 334 patients, 12.2 vs 20.1% noninferior at 1 year), and consider transcarotid flow-reversal stenting as an observationally comparable option — tied on stroke/death/MI across 14200 subjects — never as trial-proven equivalence.^[20][21][32]

Management — Technique: anaesthesia, patch, eversion

Give GALA exactly: 3526 patients across 95 centres in 24 countries — 30-day stroke/MI/death 4.8% general versus 4.5% local (RR 0.94) — anaesthesia choice does not move the composite.^[22] Give Cochrane patch exactly: against primary closure, perioperative ipsilateral stroke OR 0.31 (7 studies, 1201 participants) and long-term restenosis OR 0.24 (8 studies, 1719 participants) — but very-low to low certainty, so the evidence is uncertain and patching stays a judgement call.^[23] Give Cochrane eversion exactly: 5 trials with 2465 patients — perioperative stroke-or-death and follow-up stroke tied, restenosis above 50% cut from 5.2 to 2.5% (OR 0.48) with no clinical stroke gain — technique follows the individual surgeon's experience.^[24]

Complications & Pitfalls — the six traps

Set the open-versus-endo hyperperfusion expectation by the head-to-head meta-analysis: across 236537 procedures, endarterectomy carries higher hyperperfusion odds than stenting (pooled OR 1.43) while intracranial-haemorrhage risk ties — so pressure vigilance applies to both, slightly more to the open neck.^[30]

The conversion trap — translating a duplex percentage between NASCET and ECST denominators when this set verifies no conversion; report method and criteria instead.^[25][26] The delay trap — letting a symptomatic 70–99% stenosis wait past 2 weeks when the number-needed-to-treat quintuples within weeks and multiplies twenty-five-fold by 12 weeks.^[4] The seventy-plus stent trap — wiring a 76-year-old because stenting looks kinder when pooled data double its 120-day stroke-or-death against surgery past 70.^[20] The SPACE-equals-equivalence trap — quoting 6.84 vs 6.34% as proof stenting matches surgery when non-inferiority formally failed.^[17] The cranial-nerve reassurance trap — quoting trial rates while skipping examined nerves when specialist examination finds 6.9% motor injuries at discharge; most resolve, but consent and follow-up must say so.^[29] The hyperperfusion blind-spot trap — discharging a freshly revascularised carotid without a pressure plan when hyperperfusion declares at 12 hours and kills or disables over half the strokes it causes.^[31]

Prognosis & Disposition — the numbers that set expectations

^{[4] [5] [9] [20] [29] [31]}

Special Populations — contexts that change the emphasis

The near-occlusion leg of the viva runs on NASCET-era numbers: 48 endarterectomies with 6.3% perioperative strokes against a 1.7% medical 1-month risk (no emergency) and roughly halved 1-year stroke risk — then updated honestly with the 2024 meta-analysis pooling 9.90% beyond-30-day stroke on medicine against 0.79–0.80% with either revascularisation across 38 studies.^[27][28] The elderly patient concentrates both the largest gain and the largest device hazard: 75-plus carries a number-needed-to-treat of 5 for surgery yet doubles stenting risk past 70 — so the fit elderly patient is an endarterectomy patient first.^[4][20] Women carry a smaller absolute surgical gain (number-needed-to-treat 36 vs 9 in men) — counsel the difference rather than withholding the operation.^[4] The high-risk patient lives in SAPPHIRE: symptomatic 50%-plus or asymptomatic 80%-plus disease with comorbidity that makes surgery dangerous — protected stenting is noninferior there, with fewer repeat revascularisations at 1 year.^[21] The redo or urgent neck inherits the cranial-nerve predictors — urgent, secondary, long-clamp and haematoma cases deserve explicit nerve consent and examination.^[29]

Evidence, Guidelines & Regional Differences — the four stories and who led them

The symptomatic story is NASCET-to-ECST-to-Rothwell: North America proves high-grade benefit at 2 years, Europe bands severe/moderate/mild at 3 years, and the pooled analysis adds timing, sex and age — level-1 evidence that operates the severe early and spares the moderate.^[1][2][4] The asymptomatic story is ACAS-to-ACST-to-CREST-2: founding gains under a 3% perioperative condition, 10-year durability, then a modern split against intensive medical management where stenting wins and endarterectomy ties — with SPACE-2 and ECST-2 still too small or too early to close the question.^{[5][7][9][10][11]} The device story is CAVATAS-to-EVA-to-SPACE-to-ICSS-to-CREST: early ties and stoppages resolve into a durable pattern — periprocedural stroke favours surgery, myocardial infarction favours stenting, long-term ipsilateral protection ties, and age past 70 decides.^{[19][15][17][14][12][20]} The technique story is GALA-to-Cochrane: anaesthesia does not move the composite, patch may cut stroke and restenosis on uncertain evidence, eversion cuts restenosis without clinical gain — experience decides.^[22][23][24] The current container across these papers is intensive or optimised medical management as the comparator every modern result is measured against; regional service patterns vary, so name the trial beside every protocol claim, and note the set's stated honesty — the ESVS editions carry no quotable abstract here, so no ESVS number appears above.^[9][11]

Exam Pearls — the one-liners that score

• Symptomatic means a 120-day ipsilateral ticket; 70–99% means operate, 30–69% means medicine for most, 0–29% means never.^[1][3]
• NASCET: 26 vs 9% at 2 years; ECST-severe: 2.8 vs 16.8% at 3 years after a 7.5% operative price.^[1][2]
• Timing is the multiplier: number-needed-to-treat 5 inside 2 weeks, 125 after 12 weeks — expedited endarterectomy holds 1.4%.^[4][33]
• Asymptomatic founding: 5.1 vs 11.0% with the under-3% condition; 10-year 10.8 vs 16.9%.^[5][7]
• CREST-2 split: stent 6.0 vs 2.8% wins, endarterectomy 5.3 vs 3.7% ties — against modern therapy.^[9]
• Age 70 decides stenting: under-70 tied, 70-plus doubled — CREST periprocedural stroke 4.1 vs 2.3% against MI 1.1 vs 2.3%.^[20][12]
• SPACE is a failed non-inferiority, not equivalence; EVA-3S stopped early at RR 2.5.^[17][15]
• Duplex speaks NASCET: 210/70/3.0 for 70%; SRU 125 for 50%, 230 for 70%.^[25][26]
• Near-occlusion: no emergency (1.7% at 1 month), real benefit (halved at 1 year).^[27]
• Nerves 6.9% now, 0.25% at 2 years; hyperperfusion 4.6% at 12 hours with stroke in nearly half.^[29][31]

Revision summary

Symptomatic disease is banded and timed: 70–99% operated within 2 weeks by NASCET-ECST numbers, 30–69% managed medically, delay punished twenty-five-fold. Asymptomatic disease is era-read: founding gains under 3% perioperative risk, ACT-1 noninferiority in standard risk, then a CREST-2 split against intensive therapy with SPACE-2 and ECST-2 pending. Devices are age-read: CREST ties long-term with a stroke-versus-MI trade, ICSS-EVA-SPACE each favour surgery periprocedurally, and 70-plus doubles stenting risk. Technique is experience-read, nerves are examined not assumed, hyperperfusion is a 12-hour pressure disease, and near-occlusion is planned not panicked.^{[1][4][9][20][22][29][31][27]}

527 pts stopped early, 30-day 9.6 vs 3.9% (RR 2.5); 4-year 11.1 vs 6.2% (HR 1.97); long-term 5-year 11.0 vs 6.3% (HR 1.85) — all periprocedural-driven (PMIDs 17050890, 18774745, 25082808).^[15][16] 3749 CEAs with ENT examination, 6.9% motor injuries at discharge, 2.6% at 30 days, 0.4% at 1 year, 0.25% at 2 years — urgent/redo, clamp over 40 minutes, haematoma and stroke predict them (PMID 39142450).^[29] CHS pooled 4.6% after CAS with stroke in 47% (54% fatal/disabling) at median 12 hours; CEA carries higher CHS odds than CAS (OR 1.43) with ICH tied (PMIDs 30196814, 28991720).^[31] Update honestly with 2024: pooled beyond-30-day stroke 9.90% BMT vs 0.79% CAS vs 0.80% CEA — evolving against routine BMT-only framing (PMID 37979687).^[28]

References33ShowHide

1. [1]Barnett HJM, et al. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med, 1991.PMID 1852179
2. [2]European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70-99%) or with mild (0-29%) carotid stenosis. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. Lancet, 1991.PMID 1674060
3. [3]European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group Endarterectomy for moderate symptomatic carotid stenosis: interim results from the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial. Lancet, 1996.PMID 8667868
4. [4]Rothwell PM, et al. Endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis in relation to clinical subgroups and timing of surgery. Lancet, 2004.PMID 15043958
5. [5]Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study Endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study. JAMA, 1995.PMID 7723155
6. [6]Halliday A, et al. Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2004.PMID 15135594
7. [7]Halliday A, et al. 10-year stroke prevention after successful carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic stenosis (ACST-1): a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet, 2010.PMID 20870099
8. [8]Rosenfield K, et al. Randomized Trial of Stent versus Surgery for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. N Engl J Med, 2016.PMID 26886419
9. [9]Brott TG, et al. Medical Management and Revascularization for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. N Engl J Med, 2026.PMID 41269206
10. [10]Reiff T, et al. Carotid endarterectomy or stenting or best medical treatment alone for moderate-to-severe asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis: 5-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurol, 2022.PMID 36115360
11. [11]Donners SJA, et al. Optimised medical therapy alone versus optimised medical therapy plus revascularisation for asymptomatic or low-to-intermediate risk symptomatic carotid stenosis (ECST-2): 2-year interim results of a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet Neurol, 2025.PMID 40252662
12. [12]Brott TG, et al. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N Engl J Med, 2010.PMID 20505173
13. [13]Brott TG, et al. Long-Term Results of Stenting versus Endarterectomy for Carotid-Artery Stenosis. N Engl J Med, 2016.PMID 26890472
14. [14]Ederle J, et al. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): an interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2010.PMID 20189239
15. [15]Mas JL, et al. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med, 2006.PMID 17050890
16. [16]Mas JL, et al. Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) trial: results up to 4 years from a randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet Neurol, 2008.PMID 18774745
17. [17]Ringleb PA, et al. 30 day results from the SPACE trial of stent-protected angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet, 2006.PMID 17027729
18. [18]Mas JL, et al. Long-term follow-up study of endarterectomy versus angioplasty in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis trial. Stroke, 2014.PMID 25082808
19. [19]CAVATAS Investigators Endovascular versus surgical treatment in patients with carotid stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): a randomised trial. Lancet, 2001.PMID 11403808
20. [20]Bonati LH, et al. Age modifies the relative risk of stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis--a pooled analysis of EVA-3S, SPACE and ICSS. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2011.PMID 21269847
21. [21]Yadav JS, et al. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med, 2004.PMID 15470212
22. [22]Lewis SC, et al. General anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery (GALA): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2008.PMID 19041130
23. [23]Orrapin S, et al. Patch angioplasty versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2022.PMID 35920689
24. [24]Cao PG, et al. Eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy for preventing stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2001.PMID 11279740
25. [25]Carpenter JP, et al. Determination of duplex Doppler ultrasound criteria appropriate to the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial. Stroke, 1996.PMID 8614933
26. [26]Polak JF, et al. Accuracy of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) Carotid Doppler Velocity Criteria for Grading North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis. J Ultrasound Med, 2023.PMID 36527708
27. [27]Morgenstern LB, et al. The risks and benefits of carotid endarterectomy in patients with near occlusion of the carotid artery. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) Group. Neurology, 1997.PMID 9109876
28. [28]Gupta R, et al. Effect of Treatment Choice on Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes for Carotid Near-Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg, 2024.PMID 37979687
29. [29]Dorigo W, et al. Cranial nerve injuries post carotid endarterectomy: A 15-year prospective study with routine otolaryngologist and neurological evaluation. J Vasc Surg, 2025.PMID 39142450
30. [30]Galyfos G, et al. Cerebral hyperperfusion syndrome and intracranial hemorrhage after carotid endarterectomy or carotid stenting: A meta-analysis. J Neurol Sci, 2017.PMID 28991720
31. [31]Huibers AE, et al. Editor's Choice - Cerebral Hyperperfusion Syndrome After Carotid Artery Stenting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2018.PMID 30196814
32. [32]Gao J, et al. The Efficacy of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization With Flow Reversal System Compared to Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med, 2021.PMID 34869622
33. [33]Coelho A, et al. Editor's Choice - Timing of Carotid Intervention in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg, 2022.PMID 34953681