x
Filter:
Filters applied
- Editor
- Carotid endarterectomyRemove Carotid endarterectomy filter
- StrokeRemove Stroke filter
- European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryRemove European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery filter
Editor's Choice Articles
2 Results
- ReviewOpen Archive
Editor's Choice – An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outcomes Following Eversion vs. Conventional Carotid Endarterectomy in Randomised Controlled Trials and Observational Studies
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryVol. 55Issue 4p465–473Published online: February 6, 2018- Kosmas I. Paraskevas
- Vaux Robertson
- Athanasios N. Saratzis
- A. Ross Naylor
Cited in Scopus: 37A 2011 meta-analysis comparing eversion (eCEA) with conventional (cCEA) carotid endarterectomy in 16,251 patients concluded that eCEA was associated with lower rates of peri-operative stroke and late occlusion compared with cCEA. However, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed no difference in outcomes. Since then, the literature contains outcome data on 49,500 patients undergoing eCEA or cCEA. An updated meta-analysis was performed to establish whether eCEA confers significant benefit over cCEA. - Research ArticleOpen Archive
Editor's Choice – Very Urgent Carotid Endarterectomy is Associated with an Increased Procedural Risk: The Carotid Alarm Study
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryVol. 54Issue 3p278–286Published online: July 26, 2017- A. Nordanstig
- L. Rosengren
- S. Strömberg
- K. Österberg
- L. Karlsson
- G. Bergström
- and others
Cited in Scopus: 30The aim of the Carotid Alarm Study was to compare the procedural risk of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed within 48 hours with that after 48 hours to 14 days following an ipsilateral cerebrovascular ischaemic event.