Why calls for more routine carotid stenting are currently inappropriate: an international, multispecialty, expert review and position statement

Anne Abbott, Mark A Adelman, Andrei V Alexandrov, Peter Alan Barber, Henry J M Barnett, Jonathan D Beard, Peter Bell, Martin Bjorck, David J Blacker, Leo H Bonati, Martin M Brown, Clifford J Buckley, Richard P Cambria, John E Castaldo, Anthony J Comerota, E Sander Connolly, Ronald L Dalman, Alun H Davies, Hans-Henning Eckstein, Rishad FaruqiThomas E Feasby, Gustav Fraedrich, Peter Gloviczki, Graeme John Hankey, Robert E Harbaugh, Eitan Heldenberg, Michael Hennerici, Michael D Hill, Timothy Kleinig, Dimitri P Mikhailidis, Wesley S Moore, Ross Naylor, Andrew Nicolaides, Kosmas I Paraskevas, David M Pelz, James W Prichard, Grant Purdie, Jean-Baptiste Ricco, Peter Ringleb, Thomas Riles, Peter Malcolm W Rothwell, Peter Sandercock, Henrik Sillesen, J David Spence,, Francesco Spinelli, Jonathan W Sturm, Aaron Tan, Ankur Thapar, Frank J Veith, Tissa Wijeratne, Wei Zhou

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterOther

44 Citations (Scopus)


To avoid misguidance from calls for more routine practice (nontrial) carotid angioplasty/stenting (CAS), we need to distinguish relevant facts and patients? best interests from all else (distractions). A recent editorial by White and Jaff1 is one publication which illustrates this need particularly well. First, these authors are correct in reminding us that the responsibility of physicians is to provide best patient care, putting aside personal interest. This is inherent in any profession.2 However, misconception, bias, and conflict of interest exist. Therefore, healthcare payment organizations, such as the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services are important gatekeepers to facilitate patient access to interventions that are likely to help them, as opposed to all others.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1186 - 1190
Number of pages5
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Cite this