• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

2005 年至 2007 年颈动脉血运重建术的应用和术后结果的国家趋势。

National trends in utilization and postprocedure outcomes for carotid artery revascularization 2005 to 2007.

机构信息

Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Mass 01655, USA.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2011 Feb;53(2):307-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.08.080. Epub 2010 Nov 18.

DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2010.08.080
PMID:21093200
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study compared, at a national level, trends in utilization, mortality, and stroke after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) from 2005 to 2007.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was queried for patient discharges with International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for CAS and CEA. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, stroke, hospital charges, and discharge disposition. Subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate these outcomes by neurologic presentation using χ(2) and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 404,256 discharges for carotid revascularization, CAS utilization was 66% higher in 2006 than in 2005 (9.3% vs 14%, P = .0004). Crude mortality, stroke, and median charges remained higher for CAS than for CEA; discharge to home was more common after CEA. Results improved from 2005 to 2007. By logistic regression of the total cohort from 2005 to 2006, CAS was independently predictive of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.00; P < .0001). Independent predictors of stroke included CAS (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.18-1.73; P < .0001) and symptomatic disease (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.06-2.93;P < .0001). Among subgroups based on neurological presentation, regression showed that CAS significantly increased the odds of stroke in asymptomatic patients (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0; P = .0003). Among symptomatic patients, CAS increased the odds of in-hospital death (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.7-5.1, P < .0001) and trended toward significance for stroke (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8; P = .0569).

CONCLUSION

Utilization of CAS has increased from the years 2005 to 2007 with some improvements in the outcome. Despite improvements in outcome, resource utilization remains significantly higher for CAS than CEA.

摘要

目的

本研究在全国范围内比较了 2005 年至 2007 年颈动脉血管成形术和支架置入术(CAS)与颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)的使用率、死亡率和卒中情况。

方法

本研究通过国际疾病分类,第九修订版,临床修正(ICD-9-CM)代码,从全国住院患者样本(NIS)中查询了 CAS 和 CEA 患者的出院情况。主要结局包括院内死亡率、卒中和医院费用以及出院去向。使用卡方检验和多变量逻辑回归进行了亚组分析,以评估神经表现的这些结果。

结果

在 404256 例颈动脉血运重建出院患者中,2006 年 CAS 的使用率比 2005 年增加了 66%(9.3%对 14%,P =.0004)。CAS 的死亡率、卒中和中位数费用仍然高于 CEA;CEA 后更常见出院回家。2005 年至 2007 年的结果有所改善。通过 2005 年至 2006 年总队列的逻辑回归,CAS 是死亡率的独立预测因素(优势比[OR],1.47;95%置信区间[CI],1.08-2.00;P <.0001)。卒中的独立预测因素包括 CAS(OR,1.43;95%CI,1.18-1.73;P <.0001)和症状性疾病(OR,2.4;95%CI,2.06-2.93;P <.0001)。根据神经表现的亚组,回归显示 CAS 显著增加了无症状患者卒中的几率(OR,1.6;95%CI,1.2-2.0;P =.0003)。在有症状的患者中,CAS 增加了院内死亡的几率(OR,3.0;95%CI,1.7-5.1,P <.0001),并且卒中的几率有上升趋势(OR,1.7;95%CI,1.0-2.8;P =.0569)。

结论

自 2005 年至 2007 年,CAS 的使用率有所增加,且结果有所改善。尽管结果有所改善,但 CAS 的资源利用率仍明显高于 CEA。

相似文献

1
National trends in utilization and postprocedure outcomes for carotid artery revascularization 2005 to 2007.2005 年至 2007 年颈动脉血运重建术的应用和术后结果的国家趋势。
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Feb;53(2):307-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.08.080. Epub 2010 Nov 18.
2
Carotid artery stenting has increased rates of postprocedure stroke, death, and resource utilization than does carotid endarterectomy in the United States, 2005.在美国2005年,与颈动脉内膜切除术相比,颈动脉支架置入术增加了术后中风、死亡及资源利用的发生率。
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Dec;48(6):1442-50, 1450.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.07.017. Epub 2008 Oct 1.
3
Carotid endarterectomy was performed with lower stroke and death rates than carotid artery stenting in the United States in 2003 and 2004.2003年和2004年在美国,颈动脉内膜切除术的实施带来的中风和死亡率低于颈动脉支架置入术。
J Vasc Surg. 2007 Dec;46(6):1112-1118. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.08.030.
4
Carotid endarterectomy is more cost-effective than carotid artery stenting.颈动脉内膜切除术比颈动脉支架置入术更具成本效益。
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Jun;55(6):1623-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.12.045. Epub 2012 Mar 28.
5
Intracranial hemorrhage after carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting in the United States in 2005.2005年美国颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术后颅内出血情况
J Vasc Surg. 2009 Mar;49(3):623-8; discussion 628-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.09.064.
6
Risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes of carotid stenting and endarterectomy: results from the SVS Vascular Registry.颈动脉支架置入术和动脉内膜切除术的风险调整后30天结局:来自血管外科学会(SVS)血管登记处的结果
J Vasc Surg. 2009 Jan;49(1):71-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.08.039. Epub 2008 Nov 22.
7
The association of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Carotid Guideline Publication on utilization and outcomes of carotid stenting among "high-risk" patients.颈动脉血运重建内膜切除术与支架置入术试验(CREST)及医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心颈动脉指南出版物对“高危”患者颈动脉支架置入术的应用及结果的相关性研究
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Jul;66(1):104-111.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.02.025. Epub 2017 May 11.
8
Predictors of poor outcome after carotid intervention.颈动脉介入术后不良预后的预测因素。
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Sep;64(3):663-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.03.428. Epub 2016 May 18.
9
Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Registry evaluation of stent cell design on carotid artery stenting outcomes.血管外科学会血管注册评估颈动脉支架置入术结果中支架细胞设计。
J Vasc Surg. 2011 Jul;54(1):71-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.12.054. Epub 2011 Mar 31.
10
Diabetes is not a predictor of outcome for carotid revascularization with stenting as it may be for carotid endarterectomy.糖尿病并不是颈动脉支架置入术(carotid revascularization with stenting)预后的预测因素,而颈动脉内膜切除术(carotid endarterectomy)可能是。
J Vasc Surg. 2012 Jan;55(1):79-89; discussion 88-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2011.07.080. Epub 2011 Nov 3.

引用本文的文献

1
Extra-Cranial Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Objective Analysis of the Available Evidence.颅外颈动脉狭窄:现有证据的客观分析
Front Neurol. 2022 Jun 21;13:739999. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.739999. eCollection 2022.
2
Accurate classification of carotid endarterectomy indication using physician claims and hospital discharge data.使用医师索赔和医院出院数据准确分类颈动脉内膜切除术适应证。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Mar 22;22(1):379. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07614-1.
3
Risk factors associated with 30-day hospital readmission after carotid endarterectomy.
颈动脉内膜切除术 30 天后住院再入院的相关风险因素。
Vascular. 2021 Feb;29(1):61-68. doi: 10.1177/1708538120937955. Epub 2020 Jul 5.
4
In-hospital outcomes alone underestimate rates of 30-day major adverse events after carotid artery stenting.仅院内结局就低估了颈动脉支架置入术后 30 天主要不良事件的发生率。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Apr;71(4):1233-1241. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.06.201. Epub 2020 Feb 13.
5
Sensitivity of Administrative Coding in Identifying Inpatient Acute Strokes Complicating Procedures or Other Diseases in UK Hospitals.行政编码在识别英国医院住院急性中风并发手术或其他疾病中的敏感性。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jul 16;8(14):e012995. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012995. Epub 2019 Jul 3.
6
Surgical and Endovascular Treatment of Extracranial Carotid Stenosis.颅外颈动脉狭窄的手术和血管内治疗。
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017 Oct 27;114(43):729-736. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0729.
7
De-adoption and exnovation in the use of carotid revascularization: retrospective cohort study.颈动脉血管重建术应用中的弃用与革新:回顾性队列研究
BMJ. 2017 Oct 26;359:j4695. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4695.
8
Impact of Clinical Trial Results on the Temporal Trends of Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting From 2002 to 2014.2002年至2014年临床试验结果对颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术时间趋势的影响
Stroke. 2016 Dec;47(12):2923-2930. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.014856. Epub 2016 Nov 10.
9
Primary Angioplasty Versus Stenting for Endovascular Management of Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease Following Acute Ischemic Stroke.急性缺血性卒中后颅内动脉粥样硬化疾病血管内治疗中,直接血管成形术与支架置入术的比较
J Vasc Interv Neurol. 2016 Jun;9(1):1-6.
10
Carotid Artery Stenosis with Acute Ischemic Stroke: Stenting versus Angioplasty.伴有急性缺血性卒中的颈动脉狭窄:支架置入术与血管成形术对比
J Vasc Interv Neurol. 2015 Oct;8(4):11-6.