• 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

相似文献

1
Snapshot of current carotid artery stenting practice and accreditation in the USA.美国当前颈动脉支架置入术的实践与认证概况
BMJ Open Qual. 2019 Oct 5;8(4):e000671. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000671. eCollection 2019.
2
Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Accreditation Status of Outpatient Cerebrovascular Testing Facilities Among Medicare Beneficiaries: The VALUE Study.医疗保险受益人中门诊脑血管检测设施的社会间认证委员会认证状况:VALUE研究。
J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Sep;35(9):1957-65. doi: 10.7863/ultra.15.08021. Epub 2016 Jul 27.
3
Accreditation status and geographic location of outpatient vascular testing facilities among Medicare beneficiaries: the VALUE (Vascular Accreditation, Location & Utilization Evaluation) study.医疗保险受益人中门诊血管检测设施的认证状态及地理位置:VALUE(血管认证、位置与利用评估)研究
Vasc Med. 2014 Oct;19(5):376-84. doi: 10.1177/1358863X14547561. Epub 2014 Sep 1.
4
Accreditation Status and Geographic Location of Outpatient Echocardiographic Testing Facilities Among Medicare Beneficiaries: The VALUE-ECHO Study.医疗保险受益人中门诊超声心动图检查设施的认证状态和地理位置:VALUE-ECHO研究。
J Ultrasound Med. 2018 Feb;37(2):397-402. doi: 10.1002/jum.14349. Epub 2017 Aug 8.
5
Comparing Public Quality Ratings for Accredited and Nonaccredited Nursing Homes.比较经认证和未经认证的疗养院的公共质量评级。
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Jan;18(1):24-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.07.025. Epub 2016 Sep 3.
6
Effect of Facility IAC-Accreditation on CT Dose Awareness and Reduction.机构影像质量控制认可对CT剂量意识与降低的影响
Radiol Technol. 2017 May;88(5):472-480.
7
Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey.核心脏病学认证的机构认知:社会间认证委员会(IAC)调查结果
J Nucl Cardiol. 2015 Jun;22(3):496-503. doi: 10.1007/s12350-014-0011-5. Epub 2014 Oct 29.
8
Carotid revascularization using endarterectomy or stenting systems (CaRESS): 4-year outcomes.使用颈动脉内膜切除术或支架置入系统进行颈动脉血运重建(CaRESS):4年随访结果
J Endovasc Ther. 2009 Aug;16(4):397-409. doi: 10.1583/08-2685.1.
9
Characteristics of Accredited Transcranial Doppler Ultrasound Laboratories in the United States.美国经认可的经颅多普勒超声实验室的特点。
J Neuroimaging. 2017 Mar;27(2):210-216. doi: 10.1111/jon.12415. Epub 2016 Dec 9.
10
IAC accreditation: setting the standard of care in diagnostic imaging.国际认证委员会(IAC)认证:确立诊断成像的护理标准。
J Med Pract Manage. 2011 Jan-Feb;26(4):248-53.

本文引用的文献

1
National Patterns of Carotid Revascularization Before and After the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST).颈动脉内膜切除术与支架置入术试验(CREST)前后颈动脉血运重建的国家模式。
JAMA Neurol. 2018 Jan 1;75(1):51-57. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.3496.
2
Carotid revascularization and medical management for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: Protocol of the CREST-2 clinical trials.无症状性颈动脉狭窄的颈动脉血运重建与药物治疗:CREST-2临床试验方案
Int J Stroke. 2017 Oct;12(7):770-778. doi: 10.1177/1747493017706238. Epub 2017 May 2.
3
Recent Update on Carotid Endarterectomy versus Carotid Artery Stenting.颈动脉内膜切除术与颈动脉支架置入术的最新进展
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;43(1-2):68-75. doi: 10.1159/000453282. Epub 2016 Nov 30.
4
Carotid Artery Stenting-Historical Context, Trends, and Innovations.颈动脉支架置入术——历史背景、趋势与创新
Int J Angiol. 2015 Sep;24(3):205-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1556842. Epub 2015 Aug 19.
5
Reliability and accuracy of simple visual estimation in assessment of peripheral arterial stenosis.外周动脉狭窄评估中简单视觉估计的可靠性和准确性。
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 Jun;26(6):890-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2015.02.018. Epub 2015 Apr 3.
6
A comparison of clinical outcomes from carotid artery stenting among US hospitals.美国各医院颈动脉支架置入术临床结果的比较。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Jul;7(4):574-80. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000819. Epub 2014 Jun 3.
7
Carotid artery stenting: review of technique and update of recent literature.颈动脉支架置入术:技术综述与近期文献更新
Semin Intervent Radiol. 2013 Sep;30(3):288-96. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1353482.
8
Safety of carotid stenting (CAS) is based on institutional training more than individual experience in large-volume centres.颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)的安全性基于大容量中心的机构培训,而不是个人经验。
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013 May;45(5):424-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2013.02.003. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
9
Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches.基于社区的调查中,比较邮寄、互联网和电话模式的应答率和成本效益:采用通用或个性化招募方法。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Aug 31;12:132. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-132.
10
Operator experience and carotid stenting outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries.医疗保险受益人的术者经验与颈动脉支架置入术结局。
JAMA. 2011 Sep 28;306(12):1338-43. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1357.

美国当前颈动脉支架置入术的实践与认证概况

Snapshot of current carotid artery stenting practice and accreditation in the USA.

作者信息

Sacks David, Farrell Mary Beth, Katzen Barry T, Lally Mary, Matsumura Jon S, Merrill Nancy

机构信息

Department of Radiology/Interventional Radiology, The Reading Hospital and Medical Center, West Reading, Pennsylvania, USA.

Research, Intersocietal Accreditation Commission, Ellicott City, Maryland, USA.

出版信息

BMJ Open Qual. 2019 Oct 5;8(4):e000671. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000671. eCollection 2019.

DOI:10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000671
PMID:31673643
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6797390/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this exploratory study was to compare the performance of carotid artery stenting (CAS) best practices between Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) accredited facilities and non-accredited facilities certified by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

METHODS

A random, anonymous survey was sent to CMS and IAC accredited facilities querying facility routine performance of 16 CAS procedure components found in published guidelines and utilised during clinical trials.

RESULTS

There were 28 responses (response rate=17%). Significant differences were found between the CMS and the IAC facilities for four of 16 procedure measures: determination of modified Rankin Scale score prior to stenting (p=0.012, 95% CI 20% to 80%), accurate measurement of per cent stenosis using electronic callipers (p=0.005, 95% CI 24% to 84%), confirmation of anticoagulation with activated clotting time greater than 250 s prior to crossing the lesion (p=0.03, 95% CI 7% to 69%), and comparison of facility outcomes to accepted benchmarks for stroke and death (p=0.03, 95% CI 7% to 69%). Overall, IAC facilities performed all 16 procedures more frequently (97%) than CMS facilities (66%) (p<0.001, 95% CI 24% to 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the sample size was small, the results demonstrated IAC accredited facilities are more likely to follow best practices, to use quantitative tools to select appropriate patients, and quantitively measure patient-centred clinical outcomes compared with CMS certified facilities. The findings raise the question as to the value of CMS certification versus IAC accreditation as a requirement for reimbursement.

摘要

目的

本探索性研究旨在比较经社会间认证委员会(IAC)认证的机构与经医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)认证的非认证机构在颈动脉支架置入术(CAS)最佳实践方面的表现。

方法

向CMS和IAC认证的机构发送了一份随机、匿名调查问卷,询问其在已发表指南中发现并在临床试验中使用的16项CAS手术组件的设施常规表现。

结果

共收到28份回复(回复率 = 17%)。在16项手术指标中的4项上,CMS认证机构和IAC认证机构之间存在显著差异:支架置入术前改良Rankin量表评分的测定(p = 0.012,95%可信区间20%至80%)、使用电子卡尺准确测量狭窄百分比(p = 0.005,95%可信区间24%至84%)、在穿过病变前用活化凝血时间大于250秒确认抗凝(p = 0.03,95%可信区间7%至69%)以及将机构结果与公认的中风和死亡基准进行比较(p = 0.03,95%可信区间7%至69%)。总体而言,IAC认证机构比CMS认证机构更频繁地执行所有16项手术(97%对66%)(p < 0.001,95%可信区间24%至36%)。

结论

尽管样本量较小,但结果表明,与CMS认证机构相比,IAC认证机构更有可能遵循最佳实践,使用定量工具选择合适的患者,并定量测量以患者为中心的临床结果。这些发现引发了关于CMS认证与IAC认证作为报销要求的价值的问题。