{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034482758620689655, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006896551724137931, 'mean_word_length': 5.448888888888889, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Choosing the right therapy for a patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis

ABSTRACT Introduction: Most patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS) now have a lower risk with intensive medical therapy than with stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA); the annual risk of stroke or death with intensive medical therapy is ~ 0.5%, vs. a periprocedural risk with CAS of ~ 2.5–4.1% with CAS, and ~ 1.4–1.8% with CEA. The excess risk of CAS is greater in older patients. Areas covered: Discussed are the need for intensive medical therapy, the nature of intensive medical therapy, approaches to identifying the few patients with ACS who could benefit from CEA or CAS, and which patients would be better suited to CEA vs. CAS. Expert opinion: All patients with ACS are at high risk of cardiovascular events, soshould receive intensive medical therapy including lifestyle modification, intensive lipid-lowering, B vitamins to lower homocysteine (using methylcobalamin rather than cyanocobalamin), and appropriate antithrombotic therapy. High-risk patients who could benefit from intervention can be identified by clinical and imaging features including transcranial Doppler embolus detection, ulceration, intraplaque hemorrhage, reduced cerebrovascular reserve, plaque echolucency, silent infarction on brain imaging, and progression of stenosis. Most patients whose risk of stroke warrants intervention would be better treated with CEA than with CAS.