Katie E Shean1, John C McCallum2, Peter A Soden2, Sarah E Deery3, Joseph R Schneider4, Brian W Nolan5, Caron B Rockman6, Marc L Schermerhorn7. 1. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Department of Surgery, St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Boston, Mass. 2. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 3. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass. 4. Division of Vascular Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Ill. 5. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. 6. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY. 7. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: mscherm@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies involving large administrative data sets have revealed regional variation in the demographics of patients selected for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) but lacked clinical granularity. This study aimed to evaluate regional variation in patient selection and operative technique for carotid artery revascularization using a detailed clinical registry. METHODS: All patients who underwent CEA or CAS from 2009 to 2015 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Deidentified regional groups were used to evaluate variation in patient selection, operative technique, and perioperative management. χ2 analysis was used to identify significant variation across regions. RESULTS: A total of 57,555 carotid artery revascularization procedures were identified. Of these, 49,179 patients underwent CEA (asymptomatic: median, 56%; range, 46%-69%; P < .01) and 8376 patients underwent CAS (asymptomatic: median, 36%; range, 29%-51%; P < .01). There was significant regional variation in the proportion of asymptomatic patients being treated for carotid stenosis <70% in CEA (3%-9%; P < .01) vs CAS (3%-22%; P < .01). There was also significant variation in the rates of intervention for asymptomatic patients older than 80 years (CEA, 12%-27% [P < .01]; CAS, 8%-26% [P < .01]). Preoperative computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography in the CAS cohort also varied widely (31%-83%; P < .01), as did preoperative medical management with combined aspirin and statin (CEA, 53%-77% [P < .01]; CAS, 62%-80% [P < .01]). In the CEA group, the use of shunt (36%-83%; P < .01), protamine (32%-89%; P < .01), and patch (87%-99%; P < .01) varied widely. Similarly, there was regional variation in frequency of CAS done without a protection device (1%-8%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite clinical benchmarks aimed at guiding management of carotid disease, wide variation in clinical practice exists, including the proportion of asymptomatic patients being treated by CAS and preoperative medical management. Additional intraoperative variables, including the use of a patch and protamine during CEA and use of a protection device during CAS, displayed similar variation in spite of clear guidelines. Quality improvement projects could be directed toward improved adherence to benchmarks in these areas.
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies involving large administrative data sets have revealed regional variation in the demographics of patients selected for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) but lacked clinical granularity. This study aimed to evaluate regional variation in patient selection and operative technique for carotid artery revascularization using a detailed clinical registry. METHODS: All patients who underwent CEA or CAS from 2009 to 2015 were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). Deidentified regional groups were used to evaluate variation in patient selection, operative technique, and perioperative management. χ2 analysis was used to identify significant variation across regions. RESULTS: A total of 57,555 carotid artery revascularization procedures were identified. Of these, 49,179 patients underwent CEA (asymptomatic: median, 56%; range, 46%-69%; P < .01) and 8376 patients underwent CAS (asymptomatic: median, 36%; range, 29%-51%; P < .01). There was significant regional variation in the proportion of asymptomatic patients being treated for carotid stenosis <70% in CEA (3%-9%; P < .01) vs CAS (3%-22%; P < .01). There was also significant variation in the rates of intervention for asymptomatic patients older than 80 years (CEA, 12%-27% [P < .01]; CAS, 8%-26% [P < .01]). Preoperative computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography in the CAS cohort also varied widely (31%-83%; P < .01), as did preoperative medical management with combined aspirin and statin (CEA, 53%-77% [P < .01]; CAS, 62%-80% [P < .01]). In the CEA group, the use of shunt (36%-83%; P < .01), protamine (32%-89%; P < .01), and patch (87%-99%; P < .01) varied widely. Similarly, there was regional variation in frequency of CAS done without a protection device (1%-8%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite clinical benchmarks aimed at guiding management of carotid disease, wide variation in clinical practice exists, including the proportion of asymptomatic patients being treated by CAS and preoperative medical management. Additional intraoperative variables, including the use of a patch and protamine during CEA and use of a protection device during CAS, displayed similar variation in spite of clear guidelines. Quality improvement projects could be directed toward improved adherence to benchmarks in these areas.
Authors: Philip P Goodney; Lori L Travis; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Kerianne Holman; Bjoern Suckow; Peter K Henke; F Lee Lucas; David C Goodman; John D Birkmeyer; Elliott S Fisher Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2011-12-06
Authors: Brahmajee K Nallamothu; 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 Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John J Ricotta; Ali Aburahma; Enrico Ascher; Mark Eskandari; Peter Faries; Brajesh K Lal Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: R G Gibbs; J C Todd; C Irvine; R Lawrenson; R Newson; R M Greenhalgh; A H Davies Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Manesh R Patel; Melissa A Greiner; Lisa D DiMartino; Kevin A Schulman; Pamela W Duncan; David B Matchar; Lesley H Curtis Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-07-26
Authors: David H Stone; Brian W Nolan; Andres Schanzer; Philip P Goodney; Robert A Cambria; Donald S Likosky; Daniel B Walsh; Jack L Cronenwett Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Katie E Shean; Thomas F X O'Donnell; Sarah E Deery; Alexander B Pothof; Joseph R Schneider; Caron B Rockman; Brian W Nolan; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Thomas F X O'Donnell; Chloe Powell; Sarah E Deery; Jeremy D Darling; Kakra Hughes; Kristina A Giles; Grace J Wang; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Stephen van Gaal; Arshia Alimohammadi; Amy Y X Yu; Mohammad Ehsanul Karim; Wei Zhang; Jason M Sutherland Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: P Nazari; P Golnari; M C Hurley; A Shaibani; S A Ansari; M B Potts; B S Jahromi Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.966