• 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 2009 年 Medicare 受益人的颈动脉支架置入术治疗结果。

Outcomes after carotid artery stenting in Medicare beneficiaries, 2005 to 2009.

机构信息

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts2LASER ANALYTICA, New York, New York.

Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

出版信息

JAMA Neurol. 2015 Mar;72(3):276-86. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3638.

DOI:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3638
PMID:25580726
Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Despite increased carotid artery stenting (CAS) dissemination following the 2005 National Coverage Determination, to our knowledge, periprocedural and long-term outcomes have not been described among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the incidence of outcomes during and after the periprocedural period among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing CAS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study with a mean follow-up time of approximately 2 years among 22,516 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries at least 66 years old undergoing CAS (2005-2009) who were linked to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' CAS database. Database procedure dates were required to fall during a Medicare hospitalization for CAS.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Periprocedural (30-day) and long-term risks of mortality and stroke or transient ischemic attack, as well as periprocedural myocardial infarction. Subgroups were based on sociodemographic, clinical, and center-level factors, as well as the Stenting and Angioplasty With Protection in Patients at High Risk for Endarterectomy (SAPPHIRE) trial or Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST) enrollment criteria.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 76.3 years, 60.5% were male, 93.8% were of white race, 91.2% were at high surgical risk, 47.4% were symptomatic, and 97.4% had carotid stenosis of at least 70%. Crude 30-day mortality, stroke or transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction risks were 1.7% (95% CI, 1.5%-1.8%), 3.3% (95% CI, 3.0%-3.5%), and 2.5% (95% CI, 2.3%-2.7%), respectively. Mortality during a mean follow-up time of 2 years was 32.0% (95% CI, 31.0%-33.0%), with rates of 37.3% (95% CI, 35.8%-38.7%) among symptomatic patients and 27.7% (95% CI, 26.4%-28.9%) among asymptomatic patients. Older age, symptomatic carotid stenosis, and nonelective hospital admission were associated with increased adjusted hazards of mortality and stroke or transient ischemic attack during and after the periprocedural period. The presence of a stroke center, government ownership, and a hospital bed capacity of 500 or more were associated with increased adjusted hazards of periprocedural mortality and stroke or transient ischemic attack. Few patients met the SAPPHIRE trial or CREST enrollment criteria primarily because physicians did not meet proficiency requirements either due to exceeding periprocedural complication trial thresholds or not meeting minimum CAS volume requirements.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Competing risks may limit the benefits of CAS in certain Medicare beneficiaries, particularly among older and symptomatic patients who have higher periprocedural and long-term mortality risks. The generalizability of trials like the SAPPHIRE or CREST to the Medicare population may be limited, underscoring the need to evaluate real-world effectiveness of carotid stenosis treatments.

摘要

重要性

尽管自 2005 年国家覆盖范围决定以来,颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的应用有所增加,但据我们所知,在医疗保险受益人群中,尚未描述围手术期和长期结局。

目的

描述在医疗保险受益人群中接受 CAS 期间和之后的围手术期结局的发生率。

设计、设置和参与者:这是一项观察性研究,22516 名至少 66 岁的接受 CAS(2005-2009 年)的按服务收费的医疗保险受益人群,平均随访时间约为 2 年,他们与医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心的 CAS 数据库相关联。数据库程序日期必须在 CAS 的医疗保险住院期间进行。

主要结局和测量指标

围手术期(30 天)和死亡率、卒中和短暂性脑缺血发作以及围手术期心肌梗死的长期风险。亚组基于社会人口统计学、临床和中心水平的因素,以及支架置入和血管成形术与高内膜切除术风险患者保护(SAPPHIRE)试验或颈动脉血管重建内膜切除术与支架置入试验(CREST)纳入标准。

结果

患者平均年龄为 76.3 岁,60.5%为男性,93.8%为白人,91.2%为高手术风险,47.4%有症状,97.4%颈动脉狭窄至少 70%。30 天的死亡率、卒中和短暂性脑缺血发作和心肌梗死的粗发生率分别为 1.7%(95%CI,1.5%-1.8%)、3.3%(95%CI,3.0%-3.5%)和 2.5%(95%CI,2.3%-2.7%)。在平均 2 年的随访期间,死亡率为 32.0%(95%CI,31.0%-33.0%),其中有症状患者的死亡率为 37.3%(95%CI,35.8%-38.7%),无症状患者的死亡率为 27.7%(95%CI,26.4%-28.9%)。年龄较大、有症状的颈动脉狭窄和非择期住院与围手术期和术后死亡率和卒中和短暂性脑缺血发作的调整后的危险增加相关。存在卒中中心、政府所有和 500 张或更多病床与围手术期死亡率和卒中和短暂性脑缺血发作的调整后危险增加相关。很少有患者符合 SAPPHIRE 试验或 CREST 纳入标准,主要是因为医生没有达到熟练程度要求,要么是因为围手术期并发症试验的阈值,要么是因为没有达到最低 CAS 量要求。

结论和相关性

竞争风险可能会限制某些医疗保险受益人群中 CAS 的益处,特别是在年龄较大和有症状的患者中,他们有更高的围手术期和长期死亡率风险。像 SAPPHIRE 或 CREST 这样的试验在 Medicare 人群中的推广可能会受到限制,这突出表明需要评估颈动脉狭窄治疗的真实世界效果。

相似文献

1
Outcomes after carotid artery stenting in Medicare beneficiaries, 2005 to 2009.2005 年至 2009 年 Medicare 受益人的颈动脉支架置入术治疗结果。
JAMA Neurol. 2015 Mar;72(3):276-86. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3638.
2
Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy Among Medicare Beneficiaries.医疗保险受益人群中颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术的比较疗效
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016 May;9(3):275-85. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002336. Epub 2016 Apr 26.
3
Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in the US Medicare Population, 1999-2014.1999 - 2014年美国医疗保险人群中的颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术
JAMA. 2017 Sep 19;318(11):1035-1046. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.12882.
4
Differential outcomes of carotid stenting and endarterectomy performed exclusively by vascular surgeons in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST).颈动脉内膜切除术与血管外科医生实施的颈动脉支架置入术的疗效差异:颈动脉血运重建内膜切除术与支架置入术试验(CREST)。
J Vasc Surg. 2013 Feb;57(2):303-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2012.09.014. Epub 2012 Dec 20.
5
Remote pre-procedural ischemic stroke as the greatest risk in carotid‑stenting‑associated stroke and death: a single center's experience.远程术前缺血性卒中是颈动脉支架置入相关卒中和死亡的最大风险:单中心经验
Int Angiol. 2017 Aug;36(4):306-315. doi: 10.23736/S0392-9590.16.03737-8. Epub 2016 Dec 1.
6
Comparative effectiveness of carotid arterial stenting versus endarterectomy.颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术的比较疗效
J Vasc Surg. 2009 Nov;50(5):1040-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.05.054. Epub 2009 Jul 22.
7
Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): a randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis.症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的颈动脉支架置入术与动脉内膜切除术比较(国际颈动脉支架置入研究):一项包含成本效益分析的随机对照试验
Health Technol Assess. 2016 Mar;20(20):1-94. doi: 10.3310/hta20200.
8
Anesthetic type and risk of myocardial infarction after carotid endarterectomy in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST).颈动脉血运重建内膜切除术与支架置入术试验(CREST)中颈动脉内膜切除术后的麻醉类型与心肌梗死风险
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Jul;64(1):3-8.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.01.047. Epub 2016 Mar 16.
9
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.
10
Influence of multiple stents on periprocedural stroke after carotid artery stenting in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stent Trial (CREST).颈动脉内膜切除术与支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄试验(CREST)中,颈动脉支架置入术后多发性支架对围手术期卒中的影响。
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Mar;69(3):800-806. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.06.221. Epub 2018 Dec 4.

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
Management of Patients with Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis May Need to Be Individualized: A Multidisciplinary Call for Action.无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的管理可能需要个体化:多学科行动呼吁。
J Stroke. 2021 May;23(2):202-212. doi: 10.5853/jos.2020.04273. Epub 2021 May 31.
3
Hemodynamic impairments within individual watershed areas in asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis by multimodal MRI.
通过多模态磁共振成像评估无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者各分水岭区域内的血流动力学损伤
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2021 Feb;41(2):380-396. doi: 10.1177/0271678X20912364. Epub 2020 Apr 1.
4
Risk Prediction Tools to Improve Patient Selection for Carotid Endarterectomy Among Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis.用于改善无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者颈动脉内膜切除术患者选择的风险预测工具。
JAMA Surg. 2019 Apr 1;154(4):336-344. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.5119.
5
Long-term mortality and follow-up after carotid artery stenting.颈动脉支架置入术后的长期死亡率及随访
Hippokratia. 2016 Jul-Sep;20(3):204-208.
6
Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in the US Medicare Population, 1999-2014.1999 - 2014年美国医疗保险人群中的颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术
JAMA. 2017 Sep 19;318(11):1035-1046. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.12882.
7
Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: Surgery, Stenting, or Medical Therapy?有症状的颈动脉狭窄:手术、支架置入还是药物治疗?
Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2017 Aug;19(8):62. doi: 10.1007/s11936-017-0564-0.
8
Risk analysis of carotid stent from a population-based database in Taiwan.台湾基于人群数据库的颈动脉支架风险分析。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Aug;95(35):e4747. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000004747.
9
Long-Term Results of Stenting versus Endarterectomy for Carotid-Artery Stenosis.颈动脉狭窄支架置入术与动脉内膜切除术的长期结果
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 17;374(11):1021-31. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1505215. Epub 2016 Feb 18.
10
Management of Patients with an Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis--Medical Management, Endovascular Treatment, or Carotid Endarterectomy?无症状性颈动脉狭窄患者的管理——药物治疗、血管内治疗还是颈动脉内膜切除术?
Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2016 Jan;16(1):3. doi: 10.1007/s11910-015-0605-6.