Literature DB >> 27088224

Common Reasons That Asymptomatic Patients Who Are 65 Years and Older Receive Carotid Imaging.

Salomeh Keyhani1, Eric M Cheng2, Ayman Naseri3, Ethan A Halm4, Linda S Williams5, Jason Johanning6, Erin Madden7, Soraya Rofagha1, Alexandra Woodbridge7, Ann Abraham7, Rosa Ahn7, Susan Saba7, Elnaz Eilkhani7, Paul Hebert8, Dawn M Bravata9.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: National guidelines do not agree on the role of carotid screening in asymptomatic patients (ie, patients who have not had a stroke or transient ischemic attack). Recently, several physician organizations participating in the Choosing Wisely campaign have identified carotid imaging in selected asymptomatic populations as being of low value. However, the majority of patients who are evaluated for carotid stenosis and subsequently revascularized are asymptomatic.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand why asymptomatic patients who undergo revascularization receive initial carotid imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 4127 Veterans Health Administration patients 65 years and older undergoing carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis between 2005 and 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Indications for carotid ultrasounds were extracted using trained abstractors. Frequency of indications and appropriateness of initial carotid ultrasound imaging for patients within each rating category after the intervention were reported.
RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of this cohort of 4127 patients was 73.6 (5.9) years; 4014 (98.8%) were male. Overall, there were 5226 indications for 4063 carotid ultrasounds. The most common indications listed were carotid bruit (1578 [30.2% of indications]) and follow-up for carotid disease (stenosis/history of carotid disease) in patients who had previously documented carotid stenosis (1087 [20.8% of indications]). Multiple vascular risk factors were the next most common indication listed. Rates of appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate imaging were 5.4% (227 indications), 83.4% (3387 indications), and 11.3% (458 indications), respectively. Among the most common inappropriate indications were dizziness/vertigo and syncope. Among the 4063 patients, 3373 (83.0%) received a carotid endarterectomy. Overall, 663 procedures were performed in patients 80 years and older. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Carotid bruit and follow-up for carotid disease accounted for approximately half of all indications provided by physicians for carotid testing. Strong consideration should be given to improving the evidence base around carotid testing, especially around monitoring stenosis over long periods and evaluating carotid bruits. Targeting carotid ultrasound ordering with decision support tools may also be an important step in reducing use of low-value imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27088224      PMCID: PMC5156480          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0678

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  15 in total

Review 1.  Uses and abuses of screening tests.

Authors:  David A Grimes; Kenneth F Schulz
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-09       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care.

Authors:  Christine K Cassel; James A Guest
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Are the Current Risks of Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Exaggerated?: Further Evidence Supporting the CREST 2 Trial.

Authors:  Seemant Chaturvedi; Ralph L Sacco
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 18.302

4.  2011 ASA/ACCF/AHA/AANN/AANS/ACR/ASNR/CNS/SAIP/SCAI/SIR/SNIS/SVM/SVS guideline on the management of patients with extracranial carotid and vertebral artery disease: executive summary.

Authors:  Thomas G Brott; Jonathan L Halperin; Suhny Abbara; J Michael Bacharach; John D Barr; Ruth L Bush; Christopher U Cates; Mark A Creager; Susan B Fowler; Gary Friday; Vicki S Hertzberg; E Bruce McIff; Wesley S Moore; Peter D Panagos; Thomas S Riles; Robert H Rosenwasser; Allen J Taylor
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2011-01-31       Impact factor: 7.914

Review 5.  Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics--2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; William B Borden; Dawn M Bravata; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; David Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Pamela J Schreiner; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  Carotid endarterectomy--an evidence-based review: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.

Authors:  S Chaturvedi; A Bruno; T Feasby; R Holloway; O Benavente; S N Cohen; R Cote; D Hess; J Saver; J D Spence; B Stern; J Wilterdink
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2005-09-27       Impact factor: 9.910

7.  Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

Authors:  Larry B Goldstein; Cheryl D Bushnell; Robert J Adams; Lawrence J Appel; Lynne T Braun; Seemant Chaturvedi; Mark A Creager; Antonio Culebras; Robert H Eckel; Robert G Hart; Judith A Hinchey; Virginia J Howard; Edward C Jauch; Steven R Levine; James F Meschia; Wesley S Moore; J V Ian Nixon; Thomas A Pearson
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2010-12-02       Impact factor: 7.914

8.  Stroke: who's counting what?

Authors:  D M Reker; B B Hamilton; P W Duncan; S C Yeh; A Rosen
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr

9.  Carotid endarterectomy among Medicare beneficiaries: a statewide evaluation of appropriateness and outcome.

Authors:  H R Karp; W D Flanders; C C Shipp; B Taylor; D Martin
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 7.914

10.  Prevention of disabling and fatal strokes by successful carotid endarterectomy in patients without recent neurological symptoms: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  A Halliday; A Mansfield; J Marro; C Peto; R Peto; J Potter; D Thomas
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2004-05-08       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Re-evaluating the Appropriateness of Non-invasive Arterial Vascular Imaging and Diagnostic Modalities.

Authors:  Jason M Misher; Andrew M Galmer; Mitchell W Weinberg; John S Pellerito; Joe F Lau
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2017-08

2.  Older Adults' Perceptions of the Causes and Consequences of Healthcare Overuse: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Ariel R Green; Monica Tung; Jodi B Segal
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Evaluation and Management of Atherosclerotic Carotid Stenosis.

Authors:  James F Meschia; James P Klaas; Robert D Brown; Thomas G Brott
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 7.616

4.  Vertigo: Could this Symptom Indicate the Existence of an Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysm?

Authors:  Grigorios Gkasdaris; Pedram Tabatabaei; Harry Kourtopoulos; Theodossios Birbilis
Journal:  Maedica (Bucur)       Date:  2021-12

Review 5.  Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review.

Authors:  Elin Kjelle; Eivind Richter Andersen; Arne Magnus Krokeide; Lesley J J Soril; Leti van Bodegom-Vos; Fiona M Clement; Bjørn Morten Hofmann
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 2.795

6.  Diameter Reduction Determined Through Carotid Ultrasound Associated With Cardiovascular and All-Cause Mortality: A Single-Center Experience of 38 201 Consecutive Patients in Taiwan.

Authors:  Pei-Chun Chen; Fu-Yu Lin; Han-Chun Huang; Hsiu-Yin Chiang; Shih-Ni Chang; Pei-Shan Chen; Yuh-Cherng Guo; Pei-Shan Liao; Yu-Chyn Wei; Chin-Chi Kuo
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 6.106

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.