Prospective randomized trial of bilateral carotid endarterectomies: primary closure versus patching

Although several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none have compared the outcome of bilateral CEAs with patch versus PC performed on the same patient. This prospective randomized study compares the clinical outcome and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inStroke (1970) Vol. 30; no. 6; pp. 1185 - 1189
Main Authors AbuRahma, A F, Robinson, P A, Saiedy, S, Richmond, B K, Khan, J
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States American Heart Association, Inc 01.06.1999
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Although several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none have compared the outcome of bilateral CEAs with patch versus PC performed on the same patient. This prospective randomized study compares the clinical outcome and incidence of recurrent stenosis (>/=80%) for CEA with PC versus patch closure in patients with bilateral CEAs. This study includes 74 patients with bilateral CEAs with PC on one side and patching on the other. Patients were randomized to sequential operative treatment of either patching/PC or PC/patching. Postoperative duplex ultrasounds and clinical follow-up were done at 1, 6, and 12 months and every year thereafter. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the risk of significant restenosis (>/=80%). Demographic characteristics and the mean operative diameter of the internal carotid artery were similar for both PC and patching. The mean follow-up was 29 months (range, 6 to 65 months). The incidence of ipsilateral stroke was 4% for PC versus 0% for patching. PC had a significantly higher incidence of neurological complications (transient ischemic attacks and stroke combined) than patching (12% versus 1%; P=0.02). Operative mortality was 0%. PC had a higher incidence of recurrent stenosis (22% versus 1%; P<0.003) and total internal carotid artery occlusion (8% versus 0%; P=0.04) than patching. Restenoses necessitating a repeated CEA were also higher for PC (14%) than for patching (1%; P=0.01). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patching had a significantly better cumulative patency rate than PC (P<0.01). This analysis also showed that freedom from recurrent stenosis at 24 months was 75% for PC and 98% for patching. Patch closure is less likely than PC to cause ipsilateral stroke, transient ischemic attacks, and recurrent carotid stenosis. The higher rate of unilateral recurrent stenosis may suggest that local factors play a more significant role than systemic factors in the etiology of recurrent carotid stenosis.
AbstractList Background and Purpose —Although several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none have compared the outcome of bilateral CEAs with patch versus PC performed on the same patient. This prospective randomized study compares the clinical outcome and incidence of recurrent stenosis (≥80%) for CEA with PC versus patch closure in patients with bilateral CEAs. Methods —This study includes 74 patients with bilateral CEAs with PC on one side and patching on the other. Patients were randomized to sequential operative treatment of either patching/PC or PC/patching. Postoperative duplex ultrasounds and clinical follow-up were done at 1, 6, and 12 months and every year thereafter. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the risk of significant restenosis (≥80%). Results —Demographic characteristics and the mean operative diameter of the internal carotid artery were similar for both PC and patching. The mean follow-up was 29 months (range, 6 to 65 months). The incidence of ipsilateral stroke was 4% for PC versus 0% for patching. PC had a significantly higher incidence of neurological complications (transient ischemic attacks and stroke combined) than patching (12% versus 1%; P =0.02). Operative mortality was 0%. PC had a higher incidence of recurrent stenosis (22% versus 1%; P <0.003) and total internal carotid artery occlusion (8% versus 0%; P =0.04) than patching. Restenoses necessitating a repeated CEA were also higher for PC (14%) than for patching (1%; P =0.01). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patching had a significantly better cumulative patency rate than PC ( P <0.01). This analysis also showed that freedom from recurrent stenosis at 24 months was 75% for PC and 98% for patching. Conclusions —Patch closure is less likely than PC to cause ipsilateral stroke, transient ischemic attacks, and recurrent carotid stenosis. The higher rate of unilateral recurrent stenosis may suggest that local factors play a more significant role than systemic factors in the etiology of recurrent carotid stenosis.
Although several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none have compared the outcome of bilateral CEAs with patch versus PC performed on the same patient. This prospective randomized study compares the clinical outcome and incidence of recurrent stenosis (>/=80%) for CEA with PC versus patch closure in patients with bilateral CEAs. This study includes 74 patients with bilateral CEAs with PC on one side and patching on the other. Patients were randomized to sequential operative treatment of either patching/PC or PC/patching. Postoperative duplex ultrasounds and clinical follow-up were done at 1, 6, and 12 months and every year thereafter. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the risk of significant restenosis (>/=80%). Demographic characteristics and the mean operative diameter of the internal carotid artery were similar for both PC and patching. The mean follow-up was 29 months (range, 6 to 65 months). The incidence of ipsilateral stroke was 4% for PC versus 0% for patching. PC had a significantly higher incidence of neurological complications (transient ischemic attacks and stroke combined) than patching (12% versus 1%; P=0.02). Operative mortality was 0%. PC had a higher incidence of recurrent stenosis (22% versus 1%; P<0.003) and total internal carotid artery occlusion (8% versus 0%; P=0.04) than patching. Restenoses necessitating a repeated CEA were also higher for PC (14%) than for patching (1%; P=0.01). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patching had a significantly better cumulative patency rate than PC (P<0.01). This analysis also showed that freedom from recurrent stenosis at 24 months was 75% for PC and 98% for patching. Patch closure is less likely than PC to cause ipsilateral stroke, transient ischemic attacks, and recurrent carotid stenosis. The higher rate of unilateral recurrent stenosis may suggest that local factors play a more significant role than systemic factors in the etiology of recurrent carotid stenosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none have compared the outcome of bilateral CEAs with patch versus PC performed on the same patient. This prospective randomized study compares the clinical outcome and incidence of recurrent stenosis (>/=80%) for CEA with PC versus patch closure in patients with bilateral CEAs. METHODS: This study includes 74 patients with bilateral CEAs with PC on one side and patching on the other. Patients were randomized to sequential operative treatment of either patching/PC or PC/patching. Postoperative duplex ultrasounds and clinical follow-up were done at 1, 6, and 12 months and every year thereafter. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the risk of significant restenosis (>/=80%). RESULTS: Demographic characteristics and the mean operative diameter of the internal carotid artery were similar for both PC and patching. The mean follow-up was 29 months (range, 6 to 65 months). The incidence of ipsilateral stroke was 4% for PC versus 0% for patching. PC had a significantly higher incidence of neurological complications (transient ischemic attacks and stroke combined) than patching (12% versus 1%; P=0.02). Operative mortality was 0%. PC had a higher incidence of recurrent stenosis (22% versus 1%; P<0.003) and total internal carotid artery occlusion (8% versus 0%; P=0.04) than patching. Restenoses necessitating a repeated CEA were also higher for PC (14%) than for patching (1%; P=0.01). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patching had a significantly better cumulative patency rate than PC (P<0.01). This analysis also showed that freedom from recurrent stenosis at 24 months was 75% for PC and 98% for patching. CONCLUSIONS: Patch closure is less likely than PC to cause ipsilateral stroke, transient ischemic attacks, and recurrent carotid stenosis. The higher rate of unilateral recurrent stenosis may suggest that local factors play a more significant role than systemic factors in the etiology of recurrent carotid stenosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSEAlthough several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none have compared the outcome of bilateral CEAs with patch versus PC performed on the same patient. This prospective randomized study compares the clinical outcome and incidence of recurrent stenosis (>/=80%) for CEA with PC versus patch closure in patients with bilateral CEAs.METHODSThis study includes 74 patients with bilateral CEAs with PC on one side and patching on the other. Patients were randomized to sequential operative treatment of either patching/PC or PC/patching. Postoperative duplex ultrasounds and clinical follow-up were done at 1, 6, and 12 months and every year thereafter. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the risk of significant restenosis (>/=80%).RESULTSDemographic characteristics and the mean operative diameter of the internal carotid artery were similar for both PC and patching. The mean follow-up was 29 months (range, 6 to 65 months). The incidence of ipsilateral stroke was 4% for PC versus 0% for patching. PC had a significantly higher incidence of neurological complications (transient ischemic attacks and stroke combined) than patching (12% versus 1%; P=0.02). Operative mortality was 0%. PC had a higher incidence of recurrent stenosis (22% versus 1%; P<0.003) and total internal carotid artery occlusion (8% versus 0%; P=0.04) than patching. Restenoses necessitating a repeated CEA were also higher for PC (14%) than for patching (1%; P=0.01). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patching had a significantly better cumulative patency rate than PC (P<0.01). This analysis also showed that freedom from recurrent stenosis at 24 months was 75% for PC and 98% for patching.CONCLUSIONSPatch closure is less likely than PC to cause ipsilateral stroke, transient ischemic attacks, and recurrent carotid stenosis. The higher rate of unilateral recurrent stenosis may suggest that local factors play a more significant role than systemic factors in the etiology of recurrent carotid stenosis.
Author Khan, J
AbuRahma, A F
Saiedy, S
Richmond, B K
Robinson, P A
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: A F
  surname: AbuRahma
  fullname: AbuRahma, A F
  organization: Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia University, Charleston Area Medical Center, Charleston, WV, USA
– sequence: 2
  givenname: P A
  surname: Robinson
  fullname: Robinson, P A
– sequence: 3
  givenname: S
  surname: Saiedy
  fullname: Saiedy, S
– sequence: 4
  givenname: B K
  surname: Richmond
  fullname: Richmond, B K
– sequence: 5
  givenname: J
  surname: Khan
  fullname: Khan, J
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10356097$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpdkE1r3DAQhkVJaXY3vfdURA-5eaOxLMnKrYQ0KQRS8nEW2vGodfBaW8kOJL--CruH0NMww_MOM8-SHY1xJMa-gFgDaDgTsL5_uFtLsdZl0KoPbAGqbqpG1-0RWwghbVU31h6zZc5PQohatuoTOwYhlRbWLBj-SjHvCKf-mXjyYxe3_St1fEq9H3gMfNMPfqJUGvQpTn3Haex8KqMSKjDlc75L_danF45DzHMi_kwpz5nv_IR_-vH3CfsY_JDp86Gu2OOPy4eL6-rm9urnxfebCiXAVGEAreuAmpAUIgpLRknTWNMGCLr2HiV6aGRjZVBh0yHortWtESEYCF6u2Ol-7y7FvzPlyW37jDQMfqQ4Z6etsUqrpoDf_gOf4pzGcpsDa0yrQLUFEnsIi6GcKLjDmw6Ee7PvBLhi30nhtHuzXyJfD3vnzZa6d4G9bvkPCBaEYA
CODEN SJCCA7
Cites_doi 10.1016/0741-5214(89)90040-2
10.1007/BF02015319
10.1016/0741-5214(88)90142-5
10.1016/0741-5214(90)90156-5
10.1016/S0741-5214(94)70095-8
10.1002/bjs.1800801211
10.1097/00000658-198711000-00013
10.1016/0741-5214(88)90018-3
10.1016/0741-5214(89)90467-9
10.1016/S0741-5214(94)70116-4
10.3171/jns.1978.48.2.0201
10.1007/BF02009445
10.1161/str.15.6.6390793
10.1016/S0741-5214(95)70066-8
10.1007/BF02015312
10.1161/str.29.10.2018
10.1016/0741-5214(88)90081-X
10.1016/S0741-5214(98)70353-2
10.1007/s100169900236
10.1016/S0002-9610(97)90066-0
10.1016/S1078-5884(97)80074-3
10.1161/str.17.5.3764962
10.1161/str.20.3.2604762
10.1097/00000658-197607000-00001
10.1016/S0741-5214(96)70045-9
10.1016/0741-5214(84)90184-8
10.3171/jns.1984.61.4.0743
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Copyright American Heart Association, Inc. Jun 1999
Copyright_xml – notice: Copyright American Heart Association, Inc. Jun 1999
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
AAYXX
CITATION
K9.
NAPCQ
7X8
DOI 10.1161/01.STR.30.6.1185
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
CrossRef
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
Nursing & Allied Health Premium
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
CrossRef
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
Nursing & Allied Health Premium
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList CrossRef
MEDLINE
ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
MEDLINE - Academic
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1524-4628
EndPage 1189
ExternalDocumentID 42172194
10_1161_01_STR_30_6_1185
10356097
Genre Comparative Study
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
GroupedDBID ---
.3C
.55
.GJ
.XZ
.Z2
01R
0R~
123
1J1
2WC
3O-
40H
4Q1
4Q2
4Q3
53G
5RE
5VS
6PF
71W
77Y
7O~
A9M
AAAAV
AAAXR
AAGIX
AAHPQ
AAIQE
AAJCS
AAMOA
AAMTA
AAQKA
AAQQT
AARTV
AASCR
AASOK
AAUEB
AAXQO
AAYEP
AAYJJ
ABASU
ABBUW
ABDIG
ABJNI
ABQRW
ABVCZ
ABXVJ
ABZAD
ACCJW
ACDDN
ACEWG
ACGFS
ACGOD
ACILI
ACWDW
ACWRI
ACXJB
ACXNZ
ADBBV
ADFPA
ADGGA
ADHPY
ADNKB
AE3
AE6
AEBDS
AEETU
AENEX
AFDTB
AFEXH
AFFNX
AFSOK
AFUWQ
AGINI
AHMBA
AHOMT
AHQNM
AHRYX
AHVBC
AIJEX
AINUH
AJIOK
AJNWD
AJNYG
AJZMW
AKULP
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALMTX
AMJPA
AMKUR
AMNEI
AOHHW
AWKKM
AYCSE
BAWUL
BCGUY
BOYCO
BQLVK
BS7
C45
CGR
CS3
CUY
CVF
DIK
DIWNM
DU5
DUNZO
E.X
E3Z
EBS
ECM
EEVPB
EIF
EJD
ERAAH
EX3
F2K
F2L
F2M
F2N
F5P
FCALG
FL-
FW0
GNXGY
GQDEL
GX1
H0~
H13
HLJTE
HZ~
IKREB
IKYAY
IN~
IPNFZ
J5H
JF9
JG8
JK3
JK8
K8S
KD2
KMI
KQ8
L-C
L7B
M18
N4W
N9A
NPM
N~7
N~B
N~M
O9-
OAG
OAH
OB3
OCUKA
ODA
ODMTH
OGROG
OHYEH
OJAPA
OK1
OL1
OLG
OLH
OLU
OLV
OLW
OLY
OLZ
OPUJH
ORVUJ
OUVQU
OVD
OVDNE
OVIDH
OVLEI
OVOZU
OWBYB
OWU
OWV
OWW
OWX
OWY
OWZ
OXXIT
P-K
P2P
PQQKQ
R58
RAH
RHF
RIG
RLZ
S4R
S4S
T8P
TEORI
TSPGW
TWZ
V2I
VVN
W3M
W8F
WH7
WOQ
WOW
X3V
X3W
X7M
XXN
XYM
YCJ
YFH
YHZ
YQJ
YYP
ZB8
ZGI
ZZMQN
AAYXX
CITATION
K9.
NAPCQ
7X8
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c311t-cf1662fc6ece5ccc09e75374978f1f62aac3ca143493f5fbdc16d86870ff71fa3
ISSN 0039-2499
IngestDate Fri Aug 16 22:39:58 EDT 2024
Thu Oct 10 19:17:08 EDT 2024
Fri Aug 23 02:01:36 EDT 2024
Sat Sep 28 08:38:24 EDT 2024
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 6
Language English
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c311t-cf1662fc6ece5ccc09e75374978f1f62aac3ca143493f5fbdc16d86870ff71fa3
Notes ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
ObjectType-News-3
content type line 23
PMID 10356097
PQID 197785158
PQPubID 35232
PageCount 5
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_69795654
proquest_journals_197785158
crossref_primary_10_1161_01_STR_30_6_1185
pubmed_primary_10356097
PublicationCentury 1900
PublicationDate 1999-06-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 1999-06-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 06
  year: 1999
  text: 1999-06-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 1990
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
– name: Hagerstown
PublicationTitle Stroke (1970)
PublicationTitleAlternate Stroke
PublicationYear 1999
Publisher American Heart Association, Inc
Publisher_xml – name: American Heart Association, Inc
References e_1_3_2_26_2
e_1_3_2_27_2
e_1_3_2_28_2
e_1_3_2_29_2
e_1_3_2_20_2
e_1_3_2_21_2
e_1_3_2_22_2
e_1_3_2_23_2
e_1_3_2_24_2
e_1_3_2_25_2
(e_1_3_2_12_2) 1989; 106
e_1_3_2_9_2
e_1_3_2_15_2
e_1_3_2_8_2
e_1_3_2_16_2
e_1_3_2_7_2
e_1_3_2_17_2
e_1_3_2_6_2
e_1_3_2_18_2
(e_1_3_2_19_2) 1983; 93
e_1_3_2_1_2
e_1_3_2_10_2
e_1_3_2_5_2
e_1_3_2_11_2
e_1_3_2_4_2
e_1_3_2_3_2
e_1_3_2_13_2
e_1_3_2_2_2
e_1_3_2_14_2
References_xml – ident: e_1_3_2_7_2
  doi: 10.1016/0741-5214(89)90040-2
– ident: e_1_3_2_15_2
  doi: 10.1007/BF02015319
– ident: e_1_3_2_5_2
  doi: 10.1016/0741-5214(88)90142-5
– ident: e_1_3_2_10_2
  doi: 10.1016/0741-5214(90)90156-5
– ident: e_1_3_2_11_2
  doi: 10.1016/S0741-5214(94)70095-8
– ident: e_1_3_2_23_2
  doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800801211
– ident: e_1_3_2_3_2
  doi: 10.1097/00000658-198711000-00013
– ident: e_1_3_2_4_2
  doi: 10.1016/0741-5214(88)90018-3
– ident: e_1_3_2_6_2
  doi: 10.1016/0741-5214(89)90467-9
– ident: e_1_3_2_24_2
  doi: 10.1016/S0741-5214(94)70116-4
– ident: e_1_3_2_29_2
  doi: 10.3171/jns.1978.48.2.0201
– volume: 93
  start-page: 313
  year: 1983
  ident: e_1_3_2_19_2
  publication-title: Surgery
– ident: e_1_3_2_9_2
  doi: 10.1007/BF02009445
– ident: e_1_3_2_1_2
  doi: 10.1161/str.15.6.6390793
– ident: e_1_3_2_22_2
  doi: 10.1016/S0741-5214(95)70066-8
– ident: e_1_3_2_20_2
  doi: 10.1007/BF02015312
– ident: e_1_3_2_28_2
  doi: 10.1161/str.29.10.2018
– ident: e_1_3_2_21_2
  doi: 10.1016/0741-5214(88)90081-X
– ident: e_1_3_2_18_2
  doi: 10.1016/S0741-5214(98)70353-2
– ident: e_1_3_2_27_2
  doi: 10.1007/s100169900236
– volume: 106
  start-page: 633
  year: 1989
  ident: e_1_3_2_12_2
  publication-title: Surgery
– ident: e_1_3_2_25_2
  doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(97)90066-0
– ident: e_1_3_2_26_2
  doi: 10.1016/S1078-5884(97)80074-3
– ident: e_1_3_2_2_2
  doi: 10.1161/str.17.5.3764962
– ident: e_1_3_2_8_2
  doi: 10.1161/str.20.3.2604762
– ident: e_1_3_2_14_2
  doi: 10.1097/00000658-197607000-00001
– ident: e_1_3_2_17_2
  doi: 10.1016/S0741-5214(96)70045-9
– ident: e_1_3_2_13_2
  doi: 10.1016/0741-5214(84)90184-8
– ident: e_1_3_2_16_2
  doi: 10.3171/jns.1984.61.4.0743
SSID ssj0002385
Score 1.8455228
Snippet Although several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none have compared the...
Background and Purpose —Although several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none...
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none...
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSEAlthough several studies have compared the results of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with primary closure (PC) versus patch closure, none...
SourceID proquest
crossref
pubmed
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 1185
SubjectTerms Carotid Arteries - physiopathology
Carotid Arteries - surgery
Carotid Stenosis - diagnostic imaging
Carotid Stenosis - epidemiology
Carotid Stenosis - surgery
Endarterectomy - methods
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Incidence
Male
Prospective Studies
Recurrence
Survival Analysis
Treatment Outcome
Ultrasonography
Vascular Patency - physiology
Title Prospective randomized trial of bilateral carotid endarterectomies: primary closure versus patching
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10356097
https://www.proquest.com/docview/197785158
https://search.proquest.com/docview/69795654
Volume 30
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lj9MwELbKIiEuiDdlefjABVUJcRI7CTdAu6rYB8s2lXqzHCcW0TYNapMD-5f4k4wTp0l3FwRcosqpnMTzzXhmPA-E3lAaJkpKagUZE5ZPktASHqHAeGmqmC9VSHTu8Mkpm879zwu6GI1-DqKW6iqx5eWNeSX_Q1UYA7rqLNl_oOx2UhiA30BfuAKF4fpXND5bl12m5AT2nLQs8ktQINtOHKAFJvlS6AzjpS5AXVZ5Osm03wCGtK--yNt4uDNTcEIuS-0unOhAjXqjK642cZZD9XVWrcuLRislUeAMvQhJfS6-Fa2Tdpn38cLD_LK2HcBF7z6didwI-Zko-jBhnexfmHbHH9c_QAId9c4JU9BgJ9CjO3WaAttWQ8Rdi_TUScIW2ILti2dGGru-pZNnh-LaHOPk12QvmEr05k2BkSbRwZ7F57bn2Mzu_rpbf_v0Cz-cHx_z-GAR795t9ntf9_IikX8L3XaDiOr40aOvfWl60H3adhnmO7ozcUbeXX30rg70G8OmUXDi--iesUzwhxZmD9AoWz1Ed05M7MUjJAdowz3acIM2XCq8RRs2aMNX0fYeG6xhgzXcYg13WHuM5ocH8aepZVp0WNIjpLKkIoy5SrJMZlRK6UQZ2L-BbluoiGKuENKTAnRyP_IUVUkqCUtDBpuEUgFRwnuC9lblKnuGsBcJxwsSX1JX-IEjEuVKNxWMCQJzJHSM3naLxr-3L8sbC5YR7hAOC8w9hzOuF3iM9rtV5YZfNxwYIwD7goZj9Hp7F4SpPiETq6ysN5xFQFhG_TF62pJi8CQPbIMoeP7HmffR3Z4LXqC9al1nL0FprZJXDVh-AX0_mjI
link.rule.ids 315,786,790,27955,27956
linkProvider Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prospective+randomized+trial+of+bilateral+carotid+endarterectomies%3A+Primary+closure+versus+patching&rft.jtitle=Stroke+%281970%29&rft.au=AbuRahma%2C+Ali+F&rft.au=Robinson%2C+Patrick+A&rft.au=Saiedy%2C+Samer&rft.au=Richmond%2C+Bryan+K&rft.date=1999-06-01&rft.pub=American+Heart+Association%2C+Inc&rft.issn=0039-2499&rft.eissn=1524-4628&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1185&rft_id=info:doi/10.1161%2F01.STR.30.6.1185&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT&rft.externalDocID=42172194
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0039-2499&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0039-2499&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0039-2499&client=summon