Literature DB >> 30873551

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

Christian Lopez Ramos1, Michael G Brandel1, Robert C Rennert1, Brian R Hirshman1, Arvin R Wali1, Jeffrey A Steinberg1, David R Santiago-Dieppa1, Mitchell Flagg1, Scott E Olson1, J Scott Pannell1, Alexander A Khalessi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The "Volume Pledge" aims to centralize carotid artery stenting (CAS) to hospitals and surgeons performing ≥10 and ≥5 procedures annually, respectively.
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes after CAS between hospitals and surgeons meeting or not meeting the Volume Pledge thresholds.
METHODS: We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for CAS admissions. Hospitals and surgeons were categorized as low volume and high volume (HV) based on the Volume Pledge. Multivariable hierarchical regression models were used to examine the impact of hospital volume (2005-2011) and surgeon volume (2005-2009) on perioperative outcomes.
RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2011, 22 215 patients were identified. Most patients underwent CAS by HV hospitals (86.4%). No differences in poor outcome (composite endpoint of in-hospital mortality, postoperative neurological or cardiac complications) were observed by hospital volume but HV hospitals did decrease the likelihood of other complications, nonroutine discharge, and prolonged hospitalization. From 2005 to 2009, 9454 CAS admissions were associated with physician identifiers. Most patients received CAS by HV surgeons (79.2%). On multivariable analysis, hospital volume was not associated with improved outcomes but HV surgeons decreased odds of poor outcome (odds ratio [OR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.97; P = .028), complications (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.71, P < .001), nonroutine discharge (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.87; P = .001), and prolonged hospitalization (OR 0.52, 95% 0.44-0.61, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Most patients receive CAS by hospitals and providers meeting the Volume Pledge threshold for CAS. Surgeons but not hospitals who met the policy's volume standards were associated with superior outcomes across all measured outcomes.
Copyright © 2019 by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carotid artery stenting; Centralization; Health policy; Hospital volume; Outcomes; Surgeon volume

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 30873551      PMCID: PMC7308658          DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyz053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  34 in total

1.  Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery.

Authors:  Jonathan F Finks; Nicholas H Osborne; John D Birkmeyer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2011-06-02       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Pledging to Eliminate Low-Volume Surgery.

Authors:  David R Urbach
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  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

4.  The Hidden Consequences of the Volume Pledge: "No Patient Left Behind"?

Authors:  Dana M Schwartz; Zhi Ven Fong; Andrew L Warshaw; Michael J Zinner; David C Chang
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Influence of site and operator characteristics on carotid artery stent outcomes: analysis of the CAPTURE 2 (Carotid ACCULINK/ACCUNET Post Approval Trial to Uncover Rare Events) clinical study.

Authors:  William A Gray; Kenneth A Rosenfield; Michael R Jaff; Seemant Chaturvedi; Lei Peng; Patrick Verta
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 11.195

6.  "Take the Volume Pledge" may result in disparity in access to care.

Authors:  Barbara A Blanco; Anai N Kothari; Robert H Blackwell; Sarah A Brownlee; Ryan M Yau; John P Attisha; Yoshiki Ezure; Sam Pappas; Paul C Kuo; Gerard J Abood
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives.

Authors:  P S Romano; L L Roos; J G Jollis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Significant Association of Annual Hospital Volume With the Risk of Inhospital Stroke or Death Following Carotid Endarterectomy but Likely Not After Carotid Stenting: Secondary Data Analysis of the Statutory German Carotid Quality Assurance Database.

Authors:  Andreas Kuehnl; Pavlos Tsantilas; Christoph Knappich; Sofie Schmid; Thomas König; Thorben Breitkreuz; Alexander Zimmermann; Ulrich Mansmann; Hans-Henning Eckstein
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 6.546

9.  Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery.

Authors:  C B Begg; L D Cramer; W J Hoskins; M F Brennan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-11-25       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  A comparison of clinical outcomes from carotid artery stenting among US hospitals.

Authors:  Andrew J Epstein; Lin Yang; Feifei Yang; Peter W Groeneveld
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2014-06-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.