Literature DB >> 9158621

Regional performance of carotid endarterectomy. Appropriateness, outcomes, and risk factors for complications.

J H Wong1, J M Findlay, M E Suarez-Almazor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Guided by the findings of randomized controlled trials evaluating carotid endarterectomy (CEA), we examined the appropriateness of CEAs performed in our city and determined the incidences and risk factors for postoperative stroke, death, and cardiac complications.
METHODS: Using health records, we retrospectively reviewed 291 consecutive CEAs performed in our region over 18 months. Based on randomized controlled trial results and standardized remeasurements of angiographic carotid stenoses, indications for CEA were considered appropriate for symptomatic carotid stenoses > or = 70%, uncertain for < 70% symptomatic or > or = 60% asymptomatic stenoses, or inappropriate for < 60% asymptomatic stenoses and for patients with preoperative neurological or medical instability.
RESULTS: We found that 41% of patients (118/291) were asymptomatic. Surgical indications were appropriate in 33% of cases (92/281), uncertain in 49% (138/281), and inappropriate in 18% (51/281). Stroke or death occurred within 30 days postoperatively in 5.2% (9/174) of symptomatic patients and 5.1% (6/117) of asymptomatic patients. At least one cardiac complication (angina, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmia, or myocardial infarction) developed in 8.9% (26/291). Independent preoperative risk factors for stroke or death were histories of angina or congestive heart failure and lack of antiplatelet medication; for cardiac complications, risk factors were age > 75 years and a history of congestive heart failure.
CONCLUSIONS: Almost 1 in 5 patients underwent CEA inappropriately, which was most commonly due to apparent over-estimation of stenosis severity, and half had uncertain indications. Our high complication rate possibly negated any overall surgical benefit in the large group of asymptomatic patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9158621     DOI: 10.1161/01.str.28.5.891

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stroke        ISSN: 0039-2499            Impact factor:   7.914


  16 in total

1.  Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms.

Authors:  S E Straus; F A McAlister
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-03       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Quality improvement guidelines for the performance of cervical carotid angioplasty and stent placement.

Authors:  John D Barr; John J Connors; David Sacks; Joan C Wojak; Gary J Becker; John F Cardella; Bohdan Chopko; Jacques E Dion; Allan J Fox; Randall T Higashida; Robert W Hurst; Curtis A Lewis; Terence A S Matalon; Gary M Nesbit; J Arliss Pollock; Eric J Russell; David J Seidenwurm; Robert C Wallace
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.825

3.  Variations in rates of appropriate and inappropriate carotid endarterectomy for stroke prevention in 4 Canadian provinces.

Authors:  James Kennedy; Hude Quan; William A Ghali; Thomas E Feasby
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-08-31       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  How good is the quality of health care in the United States? 1998.

Authors:  Mark A Schuster; Elizabeth A McGlynn; Robert H Brook
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.911

5.  Training the evidence-based practitioner: university of Western States document on standards and competencies.

Authors:  Ronald P Lefebvre; David H Peterson; Mitchell Haas; Richard G Gillette; Charles W Novak; Janet Tapper; John P Muench
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2011

6.  Guidelines for the use of carotid endarterectomy: current recommendations from the Canadian Neurosurgical Society.

Authors:  J M Findlay; W S Tucker; G G Ferguson; R O Holness; M C Wallace; J H Wong
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-09-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 7.  The appropriate use of carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  Henry J M Barnett; Heather E Meldrum; Michael Eliasziw
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-04-30       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Self-perceived evidence-based practice competencies: a survey of faculty and students at a chiropractic institution.

Authors:  Anjum S Odhwani; Pradip K Sarkar; Gene F Giggleman; Michelle M Holmes; Kathrine A Pohlman
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2021-03-01

9.  Development and psychometric evaluation of an evidence-based practice questionnaire for a chiropractic curriculum.

Authors:  Michael C Leo; Dave Peterson; Mitchell Haas; Ron LeFebvre; Shireesh Bhalerao
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.437

10.  Evaluation of the effects of an evidence-based practice curriculum on knowledge, attitudes, and self-assessed skills and behaviors in chiropractic students.

Authors:  Mitchell Haas; Michael Leo; David Peterson; Ron Lefebvre; Darcy Vavrek
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.