Key result
Carotid near-occlusions showed a lower risk of stroke than other severe stenoses, with emerging evidence suggesting higher risk in cases with full collapse compared to those without.
Systematic Review
This review highlights the critical need to distinguish between carotid near-occlusion with and without full collapse, as they likely have different stroke risks and pathophysiological mechanisms.
Distinguish near-occlusion subtypes for stroke risk stratification; extends evidence by highlighting full-collapse heterogeneity in severe carotid stenosis.
In Part 1 of this review, the definition, terminology, and diagnosis of carotid near-occlusion were presented. Carotid near-occlusions (all types) showed a lower risk of stroke than other severe stenoses. However, emerging evidence suggests that the near-occlusion prognosis with full collapse (higher risk) differs from that without full collapse (lower risk). This systematic review presents what is known about carotid near-occlusion. In this second part, the foci are prognosis and treatment, pathophysiology, the current confusion about near-occlusion, and areas in need of future improvement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johansson et al. (2015) conducted a systematic review in Carotid near-occlusion. Carotid near-occlusion vs. Other severe stenoses was evaluated on Stroke. Carotid near-occlusions showed a lower risk of stroke than other severe stenoses, with emerging evidence suggesting higher risk in cases with full collapse compared to those without.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: