[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.226.234.20. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
July 1996

Carotid Angioplasty

Author Affiliations

London, Ontario

Arch Neurol. 1996;53(7):700-701. doi:10.1001/archneur.1996.00550070142025
Abstract

There never is a perfect time. If carotid angioplasty is evaluated prematurely, a promising technique may be felled before it is proven. On the other hand, if no randomized controlled clinical trials take place, we may end up in the same quandary as exists regarding angioplasty for peripheral vascular disease, where we are still uncertain about its usefulness 3 decades after it began.1

By homonymic coincidence, this controversy is among a fanfare of Fergusons. Robert and John heralding the potential advantages of angioplasty and Gary sounding a note of caution. They all advocate the scientific evaluation of angioplasty. The difference is in timing. Robert and John are for a clinical trial, but not yet. Gary thinks that clinical trials should be undertaken now and only in situations where carotid endarterectomy is not known to be beneficial. Yet, their views are compatible. It would take some time to mount a

×