Shean Katie E, McCallum John C, Soden Peter A, Deery Sarah E, Schneider Joseph R, Nolan Brian W, Rockman Caron B, Schermerhorn Marc L
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.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
J Vasc Surg. 2017 Jul;66(1):112-121. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.01.023. Epub 2017 Mar 27.
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.
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. χ analysis was used to identify significant variation across regions.
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).
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.
以往涉及大型管理数据集的研究揭示了接受颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)患者的人口统计学特征存在地区差异,但缺乏临床细节。本研究旨在使用详细的临床登记系统评估颈动脉血运重建患者选择和手术技术的地区差异。
在血管质量倡议(VQI)中识别出2009年至2015年期间接受CEA或CAS的所有患者。使用去识别化的地区分组来评估患者选择、手术技术和围手术期管理的差异。采用χ分析来识别各地区之间的显著差异。
共识别出57555例颈动脉血运重建手术。其中,49179例患者接受了CEA(无症状:中位数为56%;范围为46%-69%;P <.01),8376例患者接受了CAS(无症状:中位数为36%;范围为29%-51%;P <.01)。在CEA中,无症状性颈动脉狭窄<70%患者接受治疗的比例(3%-9%;P <.01)与CAS(3%-22%;P <.01)相比存在显著地区差异。80岁以上无症状患者的干预率也存在显著差异(CEA,12%-27% [P <.01];CAS,8%-26% [P <.01])。CAS队列中术前计算机断层扫描血管造影或磁共振血管造影的使用也有很大差异(31%-83%;P <.01),联合使用阿司匹林和他汀类药物的术前药物管理情况也是如此(CEA,53%-77% [P <.01];CAS,62%-80% [P <.01])。在CEA组中,分流管(36%-83%;P <.01)、鱼精蛋白(32%-89%;P <.01)和补片(87%-99%;P <.01)的使用差异很大。同样,未使用保护装置进行CAS的频率也存在地区差异(1%-8%;P <.01)。
尽管有旨在指导颈动脉疾病管理的临床基准,但临床实践中仍存在很大差异,包括CAS治疗的无症状患者比例和术前药物管理。尽管有明确的指南,但其他术中变量,包括CEA期间补片和鱼精蛋白的使用以及CAS期间保护装置的使用,也显示出类似的差异。质量改进项目可针对提高这些领域对基准的遵守情况。