INTRODUCTION: Despite the high grade of standardisation of study protocols, there is still room for variability among the centres in specific treatment aspects. We evaluated the treatment risk in stent-protected angioplasty of the carotid versus endarterectomy (SPACE) associated with the specific patient enrollment rates of the centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysed endpoints were ipsilateral stroke or death [primary outcome event (pOE)] and any stroke or death [secondary outcome event (sOE)] until 30 days after treatment. A binary logistic regression analysis with random effects was performed separately for each treatment arm. The centres were secondarily categorised in three classes: I) > or = 25 patients enrolled, II) ten to 24 patients and III) <10 patients and a hierarchic log linear model was fitted to test the three-way interaction of treatment, number of patients per class and outcome. RESULTS: The random effects logistic regression analysis in the carotid artery stenting (CAS) arm proved a significant increase in pOE with decreasing number of patients enrolled (-0.0190 +/- 0.0085, p = 0.025, deviance 35.7 with 32 df), whereas no such effect was found in the carotid endartectomy (CEA) arm (-0.010 +/- 0.008, p = 0.24, deviance 39.78 with 32 df). In the log linear model, there was a significant interaction between treatment, number of patients per centre and sOE (p = 0.023). The odds ratios for sOE in the enrollment classes (CAS vs. CEA) were 0.98 (95% CI 0.50-1.94, p = 0.95) for class I, 1.13 (95% CI 0.47-2.77, p = 0.77) for class II and 11.56 (95% CI 1.40-253.45, p = 0.01) for class III centres. CONCLUSION: Despite rigorous standardisation and quality requirements for operator qualification, there seemed to be a decrease in complication rate with increasing patient enrollment numbers in the CAS arm while this signal could not be detected in the CEA arm of SPACE.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Despite the high grade of standardisation of study protocols, there is still room for variability among the centres in specific treatment aspects. We evaluated the treatment risk in stent-protected angioplasty of the carotid versus endarterectomy (SPACE) associated with the specific patient enrollment rates of the centres. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysed endpoints were ipsilateral stroke or death [primary outcome event (pOE)] and any stroke or death [secondary outcome event (sOE)] until 30 days after treatment. A binary logistic regression analysis with random effects was performed separately for each treatment arm. The centres were secondarily categorised in three classes: I) > or = 25 patients enrolled, II) ten to 24 patients and III) <10 patients and a hierarchic log linear model was fitted to test the three-way interaction of treatment, number of patients per class and outcome. RESULTS: The random effects logistic regression analysis in the carotid artery stenting (CAS) arm proved a significant increase in pOE with decreasing number of patients enrolled (-0.0190 +/- 0.0085, p = 0.025, deviance 35.7 with 32 df), whereas no such effect was found in the carotid endartectomy (CEA) arm (-0.010 +/- 0.008, p = 0.24, deviance 39.78 with 32 df). In the log linear model, there was a significant interaction between treatment, number of patients per centre and sOE (p = 0.023). The odds ratios for sOE in the enrollment classes (CAS vs. CEA) were 0.98 (95% CI 0.50-1.94, p = 0.95) for class I, 1.13 (95% CI 0.47-2.77, p = 0.77) for class II and 11.56 (95% CI 1.40-253.45, p = 0.01) for class III centres. CONCLUSION: Despite rigorous standardisation and quality requirements for operator qualification, there seemed to be a decrease in complication rate with increasing patient enrollment numbers in the CAS arm while this signal could not be detected in the CEA arm of SPACE.
Authors: P A Ringleb; J Allenberg; H Brückmann; H-H Eckstein; G Fraedrich; M Hartmann; M Hennerici; O Jansen; G Klein; A Kunze; P Marx; K Niederkorn; W Schmiedt; L Solymosi; R Stingele; H Zeumer; W Hacke Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-10-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert W Hobson; Virginia J Howard; Gary S Roubin; Robert D Ferguson; Thomas G Brott; George Howard; Alice J Sheffet; Jamie Roberts; L Nick Hopkins; Wesley S Moore Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: William A Gray; Jay S Yadav; Patrick Verta; Andrea Scicli; Ronald Fairman; Mark Wholey; L Nelson Hopkins; Richard Atkinson; Rod Raabe; Stanley Barnwell; Richard Green Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Robert Stingele; Jürgen Berger; Karsten Alfke; Hans-Henning Eckstein; Gustav Fraedrich; Jens Allenberg; Marius Hartmann; Peter A Ringleb; Jens Fiehler; H Bruckmann; M Hennerici; O Jansen; G Klein; A Kunze; P Marx; K Niederkorn; W Schmiedt; L Solymosi; H Zeumer; W Hacke Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Søren Jacob Bakke; Andrew Clifton; Emmanuel Houdart; Olav Jansen; Daniel Rüfenacht; Michael Söderman; Christophe Cognard Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Michael Söderman; Francis Turjman; Philip M White; Søren Jacob Bakke; Salvatore Mangiafico; Rüdiger von Kummer; Mario Muto; Christophe Cognard; Jan Gralla Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Nicole R Gonzales; Bart M Demaerschalk; Jenifer H Voeks; MeeLee Tom; George Howard; Alice J Sheffet; Lawrence Garcia; Daniel G Clair; John Barr; Steven Orlow; Thomas G Brott Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: L Nelson Hopkins; Gary S Roubin; Elie Y Chakhtoura; William A Gray; Robert D Ferguson; Barry T Katzen; Kenneth Rosenfield; Jonathan Goldstein; Donald E Cutlip; William Morrish; Brajesh K Lal; Alice J Sheffet; MeeLee Tom; Susan Hughes; Jenifer Voeks; Krishna Kathir; James F Meschia; Robert W Hobson; Thomas G Brott Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.136