Literature DB >> 21954477

Operator experience and carotid stenting outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries.

Brahmajee K Nallamothu1, Hitinder S Gurm, Henry H Ting, Philip P Goodney, Mary A M Rogers, Jeptha P Curtis, Justin B Dimick, Eric R Bates, Harlan M Krumholz, John D Birkmeyer.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Although the efficacy of carotid stenting has been established in clinical trials, outcomes of the procedure based on operator experience are less certain in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To assess association between outcomes and 2 measures of operator experience: annual volume and experience at the time of the procedure among new operators who first performed carotid stenting after a national coverage decision by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Observational study using administrative data on fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older undergoing carotid stenting between 2005 and 2007. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Thirty-day mortality stratified by very low, low, medium, and high annual operator volumes (<6, 6-11, 12-23, and ≥24 procedures per year, respectively) and treatment early vs late during a new operator's experience (1st to 11th procedure and 12th procedure or higher).
RESULTS: During the study period, 24,701 procedures were performed by 2339 operators. Of these, 11,846 were performed by 1792 new operators who first performed carotid stenting after the CMS national coverage decision. Overall, 30-day mortality was 1.9% (n = 461) and rate of failure to use an embolic protection device was 4.8% (n = 1173). The median annual operator volume among Medicare beneficiaries was 3.0 per year (interquartile range, 1.4-6.5) and 11.6% of operators performed 12 or more procedures per year during the study period. Observed 30-day mortality was higher among patients treated by operators with lower annual volumes (2.5% [95% CI, 2.1%-2.9%], 1.9% [95% CI, 1.6%-2.3%], 1.6% [95% CI, 1.3%-1.9%], and 1.4% [95% CI, 1.1%-1.7%] across the 4 categories; P < .001) and among patients treated early (2.3%; 95% CI, 2.0%-2.7%) vs late (1.4%; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.9%; P < .001) during a new operator's experience. After multivariable adjustment, patients treated by very low-volume operators had a higher risk of 30-day mortality compared with patients treated by high-volume operators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; P < .001). Similarly, we found a higher risk of 30-day mortality in patients treated early vs late during a new operator's experience (adjusted odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P = .001).
CONCLUSION: Among older patients undergoing carotid stenting, lower annual operator volume and early experience are associated with increased 30-day mortality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21954477      PMCID: PMC3208144          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.1357

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  23 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review.

Authors:  C R Ramsay; A M Grant; S A Wallace; P H Garthwaite; A F Monk; I T Russell
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 2.  Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies.

Authors:  C R Ramsay; A M Grant; S A Wallace; P H Garthwaite; A F Monk; I T Russell
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  The good, the bad, and the about-to-get ugly: national trends in carotid revascularization: comment on "Geographic variation in carotid revascularization among Medicare beneficiaries, 2003-2006".

Authors:  Ethan A Halm
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-07-26

4.  Approval of virtual reality training for carotid stenting: what this means for procedural-based medicine.

Authors:  Anthony G Gallagher; Christopher U Cates
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-12-22       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Clinical competence statement on carotid stenting: training and credentialing for carotid stenting--multispecialty consensus recommendations: a report of the SCAI/SVMB/SVS Writing Committee to develop a clinical competence statement on carotid interventions.

Authors:  Kenneth Rosenfield; Joseph D Babb; Christopher U Cates; Michael J Cowley; Ted Feldman; Anthony Gallagher; William Gray; Richard Green; Michael R Jaff; K Craig Kent; Kenneth Ouriel; Gary S Roubin; Bonnie H Weiner; Christopher J White
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2005-01-04       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 6.  Training, competency, and credentialing standards for diagnostic cervicocerebral angiography, carotid stenting, and cerebrovascular intervention: a joint statement from the American Academy of Neurology, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology, the American Society of Neuroradiology, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, the AANS/CNS Cerebrovascular Section, and the Society of Interventional Radiology.

Authors:  John J Connors; David Sacks; Anthony J Furlan; Warren R Selman; Eric J Russell; Philip E Stieg; Mark N Hadley; Joan C Wojak; Walter J Koroshetz; Roberto C Heros; Charles M Strother; Gary R Duckwiler; Janette D Durham; Thomas O Tomsick; Robert H Rosenwasser; Cameron G McDougall; Victor M Haughton; Colin P Derdeyn; Lawrence R Wechsler; Patricia A Hudgins; Mark J Alberts; Rodney D Raabe; Camillo R Gomez; C Michael Cawley; Katharine L Krol; Nancy Futrell; Robert A Hauser; Jeffrey I Frank
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2005-01-25       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 7.  Early outcome of carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection devices: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Andreas Kastrup; Klaus Gröschel; Hilmar Krapf; Bernhard R Brehm; Johannes Dichgans; Jörg B Schulz
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2003-02-13       Impact factor: 7.914

8.  Global experience in cervical carotid artery stent placement.

Authors:  M H Wholey; M Wholey; K Mathias; G S Roubin; E B Diethrich; M Henry; S Bailey; P Bergeron; G Dorros; G Eles; P Gaines; C R Gomez; B Gray; J Guimaraens; R Higashida; D S Ho; B Katzen; A Kambara; V Kumar; J C Laborde; M Leon; M Lim; H Londero; J Mesa; A Musacchio; S Myla; S Ramee; A Rodriquez; K Rosenfield; N Sakai; F Shawl; H Sievert; G Teitelbaum; J G Theron; P Vaclav; C Vozzi; J S Yadav; S I Yoshimura
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients.

Authors:  Jay S Yadav; Mark H Wholey; Richard E Kuntz; Pierre Fayad; Barry T Katzen; Gregory J Mishkel; Tanvir K Bajwa; Patrick Whitlow; Neil E Strickman; Michael R Jaff; Jeffrey J Popma; David B Snead; Donald E Cutlip; Brian G Firth; Kenneth Ouriel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-10-07       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Predictors of laparoscopic complications after formal training in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  W A See; C S Cooper; R J Fisher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-12-08       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  45 in total

1.  Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy: Post CREST.

Authors:  Michael Buschur; Hitinder S Gurm
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-02-05       Impact factor: 2.931

2.  An objective evaluation of a multi-component, competitive, selection process for admitting surgeons into higher surgical training in a national setting.

Authors:  Anthony G Gallagher; Gerald C O'Sullivan; Paul C Neary; Sean M Carroll; Gerald Leonard; Brendan P Bunting; Oscar Traynor
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Trends in hospital procedure volumes for intra-arterial treatment of acute ischemic stroke: results from the paul coverdell national acute stroke program.

Authors:  Ganesh Asaithambi; Xin Tong; Kamakshi Lakshminarayan; Sallyann M Coleman King; Mary G George
Journal:  J Neurointerv Surg       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 5.836

4.  The Potential Impact of "Take the Volume Pledge" on Outcomes After Carotid Artery Stenting.

Authors:  Christian Lopez Ramos; Michael G Brandel; Robert C Rennert; Brian R Hirshman; Arvin R Wali; Jeffrey A Steinberg; David R Santiago-Dieppa; Mitchell Flagg; Scott E Olson; J Scott Pannell; Alexander A Khalessi
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 4.654

5.  Learning curve estimation in medical devices and procedures: hierarchical modeling.

Authors:  Usha S Govindarajulu; Marco Stillo; David Goldfarb; Michael E Matheny; Frederic S Resnic
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Volume, outcome, and policy.

Authors:  Mark A Hlatky
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 7.  Recommendations for optimal ICD codes to study neurologic conditions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Christine St Germaine-Smith; Amy Metcalfe; Tamara Pringsheim; Jodie Irene Roberts; Cynthia A Beck; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Jane McChesney; Hude Quan; Nathalie Jette
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Complication rates and center enrollment volume in the carotid revascularization endarterectomy versus stenting trial.

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

Review 9.  Carotid artery stenting: review of technique and update of recent literature.

Authors:  Sun Ho Ahn; Ethan A Prince; Gregory J Dubel
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 1.513

10.  Validating Publicly Available Crosswalks for Translating ICD-9 to ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research.

Authors:  Jesse A Columbo; Ravinder Kang; Spencer W Trooboff; Kristen S Jahn; Camilo J Martinez; Kayla O Moore; Andrea M Austin; Nancy E Morden; Corinne G Brooks; Jonathan S Skinner; Philip P Goodney
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2018-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.