According to this review article, for symptomatic internal carotid artery stenosis:

[Carotid endarterectomy] was highly beneficial in participants with 70% to 99% stenosis without near-occlusion (N = 1095, RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.88). However, there was no evidence of benefit (N = 271, RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.57 to 1.84) in participants with near-occlusions

Why is carotid endarterectomy beneficial for 70%-99%, but not 100% stenosis (unsure if this is the correct term)?

Source: Orrapin S, Rerkasem K. Carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 7;6(6):CD001081. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001081.pub3. PMID: 28590505; PMCID: PMC6481587.

  • I don't think that review says anything about "symptomatic complete internal carotid occlusion", the group is "near-occlusions" which says nothing about symptomatic (nor is it truly complete if it's a near-occlusion).
    – Bryan Krause
    Sep 22, 2020 at 19:33
  • I do admit I have confusion between the terms 99% stenosis, complete occlusion, and near-occlusion. Let me reword the question.
    – D.Tan
    Sep 22, 2020 at 19:35
  • If you look at the review article, it is specifically looking at symptomatic carotid stenosis. I think asymptomatic stenosis has a different treatment recommendation.
    – D.Tan
    Sep 22, 2020 at 19:38
  • Oops, yes you are right about only symptomatic. There was one sentence that made me think both were included. Near-occlusions are those where the vessel appears occluded and yet tracer passes through slowly.
    – Bryan Krause
    Sep 22, 2020 at 19:43
  • A detailed description of how "near occlusion" is defined and what radiologic procedures are used to diagnosis it appears here. radiopaedia.org/articles/carotid-near-occlusion?lang=us As explained at this website, synonymous terms are "near-total occlusion, pseudo-occlusion, subocclusion, incomplete occlusion, functional occlusion, and preocclusive stenosis." So near-occlusions are not 100% occlusion. This doesn't answer your question but perhaps the findings of this pooled analysis don't seem so contradictory recognizing this. Sep 23, 2020 at 21:31

1 Answer 1


I think this is probably due to selection bias, but I cannot find a source from someone in the field to reference.

Instead, to support this conclusion, note that in the review you reference, the people with near-occlusions overall have fewer negative outcomes than those with lesser occlusions.

People who are not already dead while having such a blockage clearly have enough collateral circulation to compensate for the near-occlusion. Something that is already blocked cannot become suddenly blocked in the future.

The review also mentions that these are all intent-to-treat analyses, and so it's not necessarily the case that those with near-occlusions did end up having surgery after all, despite being allocated to the non-surgery group. However, the lower (rather than higher) risk in this group seems to argue against that.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.