2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2010.10.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Population-Based Study of Risk Factors for Stroke After Carotid Endarterectomy Using the ACS NSQIP Database

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
2
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
1
22
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…[25][26][27] Like Arozullah et al, 7 this study also found dependent functional status to be a risk factor associated with PRF. Higher ASA class, Physicians have long quoted the most current literature to explain risks of adverse outcomes associated with a procedure.…”
Section: Development and Validation Of Risk Modelsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…[25][26][27] Like Arozullah et al, 7 this study also found dependent functional status to be a risk factor associated with PRF. Higher ASA class, Physicians have long quoted the most current literature to explain risks of adverse outcomes associated with a procedure.…”
Section: Development and Validation Of Risk Modelsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…15-17 These patients have been excluded from most trials due to their higher perioperative risk and relatively shorter life expectancy. 18 ACAS and the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial showed an absolute stroke risk reduction of approximately 5% over 5 years, 1,19 which necessitates a long enough life expectancy for the benefits to be realized.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar associations were also demonstrated in two recent ACS NSQIP analyses focusing on the identification of preoperative risk factors for postoperative complications. 8,34 The risk factors identified in these studies were not identical to those determined in this analysis and also differed among each other. This may be explained by the smaller dataset used in these studies, different primary outcomes, and/or by variations in the statistical models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%