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...
Saved in:
Published in | Stroke (1970) Vol. 30; no. 6; pp. 1185 - 1189 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
American Heart Association, Inc
01.06.1999
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get 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 |