Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2381/23695
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNaylor, AR-
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-24T09:13:21Z-
dc.date.available2012-10-24T09:13:21Z-
dc.date.issued2011-07-
dc.identifier.citationSTROKE, 2011, 42 (7), pp. 2080-2085-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2381/23695-
dc.description.abstractYear 2011 sees the publication of U.S. guidelines that recommend expanding indications for carotid artery stenting into "average-risk" patients, whereas guidelines from Australia/New Zealand largely do not. This article reviews the status of invasive treatment of carotid disease and highlights 2 controversial issues that were not really addressed in these guidelines: (1) a lack of emphasis on the importance of intervening rapidly after transient ischemic attack/minor stroke; and (2) why continue to recommend that only "highly selected" asymptomatic patients should undergo intervention when virtually no-one pays any attention?-
dc.formatmetadata-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.sourcePubMed-
dc.source.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/-
dc.subjectAged-
dc.subjectAustralia-
dc.subjectCardiology-
dc.subjectCarotid Artery Diseases-
dc.subjectCarotid Stenosis-
dc.subjectEndarterectomy-
dc.subjectCarotid-
dc.subjectGuidelines as Topic-
dc.subjectHumans-
dc.subjectMiddle Aged-
dc.subjectNew Zealand-
dc.subjectRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic-
dc.subjectTime Factors-
dc.subjectUnited States-
dc.titleWhat is the current status of invasive treatment of extracranial carotid artery disease?-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.597708-
dc.identifier.eissn1524-4628-
dc.identifier.piiSTROKEAHA.110.597708-
dc.description.irispid76111-
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, Dept. of Cardiovascular Sciences

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.