• 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
Estimated Cost of Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization Compared With Carotid Endarterectomy and Transfemoral Carotid Stenting.经颈动脉血管重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术及经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术相比的估计成本。
Cureus. 2022 Mar 27;14(3):e23539. doi: 10.7759/cureus.23539. eCollection 2022 Mar.
2
Association of carotid revascularization approach with perioperative outcomes based on symptom status and degree of stenosis among octogenarians.基于症状和狭窄程度,80 岁及以上人群颈动脉血运重建方法与围手术期结局的相关性。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Sep;76(3):769-777.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.04.027. Epub 2022 May 25.
3
Procedural Safety Comparison Between Transcarotid Artery Revascularization, Carotid Endarterectomy, and Carotid Stenting: Perioperative and 1-Year Rates of Stroke or Death.经颈动脉血运重建术、颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术的围手术期和 1 年卒中或死亡率的操作安全性比较。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Oct 4;11(19):e024964. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024964. Epub 2022 Sep 29.
4
Outcomes following carotid revascularization in patients with prior ipsilateral carotid artery stenting in the Vascular Quality Initiative.血管质量倡议中既往同侧颈动脉支架置入术后行颈动脉血运重建术的患者结局。
J Vasc Surg. 2024 Dec;80(6):1705-1715.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.08.024. Epub 2024 Aug 22.
5
Outcomes of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization and Carotid Endarterectomy at a Single Institution.单中心颈动脉血运重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术的结果。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2021 May;73:329-335. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.10.023. Epub 2020 Nov 26.
6
Propensity score-matched analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcarotid revascularization with dynamic flow reversal, carotid endarterectomy, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting.经颈动脉血管重建术(动态血流逆转)、颈动脉内膜切除术和经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术1年结局的倾向评分匹配分析。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Jan;75(1):213-222.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.07.242. Epub 2021 Sep 6.
7
Modality-specific outcomes of patients undergoing carotid revascularization in the setting of recent myocardial infarction.近期心肌梗死后行颈动脉血运重建术患者的术式特异性结局。
J Vasc Surg. 2024 Jan;79(1):88-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.09.024. Epub 2023 Sep 22.
8
Outcomes of transfemoral carotid artery stenting and transcarotid artery revascularization for restenosis after prior ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy.经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术和颈动脉内膜切除术治疗同侧颈动脉再狭窄后的转颈动脉血运重建术的结果。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Feb;75(2):561-571.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.07.245. Epub 2021 Sep 8.
9
In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.血管外科学会血管质量倡议中的经颈动脉血管重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术的院内转归。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Jan;71(1):87-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.11.029. Epub 2019 Jun 18.
10
The impact of age on in-hospital outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization, transfemoral carotid artery stenting, and carotid endarterectomy.年龄对经颈动脉血管重建术、经股颈动脉血管支架置入术和颈动脉内膜切除术住院治疗结果的影响。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Sep;72(3):931-942.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.11.037. Epub 2020 Feb 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Seven years of the transcarotid artery revascularization surveillance project, comparison to transfemoral stenting and endarterectomy.经颈动脉血运重建监测项目七年,与经股动脉支架置入术和内膜切除术的比较。
J Vasc Surg. 2024 Nov;80(5):1455-1463. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.05.048. Epub 2024 May 29.
2
History of Carotid Artery Reconstruction around the World and in Japan.颈动脉重建术的全球及日本历史。
Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2023 Jul 15;63(7):283-294. doi: 10.2176/jns-nmc.2022-0362. Epub 2023 Apr 20.

本文引用的文献

1
Carotid endarterectomy remains cost-effective for the surgical management of carotid stenosis.颈动脉内膜切除术仍然是治疗颈动脉狭窄的一种具有成本效益的手术方法。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Apr;75(4):1304-1310. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.09.039. Epub 2021 Oct 8.
2
Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy.无症状性颈动脉手术试验 2(ACST-2):颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术的随机比较
Lancet. 2021 Sep 18;398(10305):1065-1073. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01910-3. Epub 2021 Aug 29.
3
Cost-effectiveness of transcarotid artery revascularization versus carotid endarterectomy.经颈动脉血管重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术的成本效益比较。
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Dec;74(6):1910-1918.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.05.051. Epub 2021 Jun 26.
4
Nationwide Trends in Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in the Post-CREST Era.全国范围内 CREST 时代后颈动脉内膜切除术和颈动脉支架置入术的趋势。
Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(2):579-587. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.027388. Epub 2019 Dec 18.
5
Association of Transcarotid Artery Revascularization vs Transfemoral Carotid Artery Stenting With Stroke or Death Among Patients With Carotid Artery Stenosis.经颈动脉血运重建术与经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术治疗颈动脉狭窄患者卒中和死亡的相关性。
JAMA. 2019 Dec 17;322(23):2313-2322. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.18441.
6
The Vascular Quality Initiative 30-day stroke/death risk score calculator after transfemoral carotid artery stenting.经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术后的血管质量倡议 30 天卒中/死亡风险评分计算器。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Feb;71(2):526-534. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.05.051. Epub 2019 Sep 13.
7
In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.血管外科学会血管质量倡议中的经颈动脉血管重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术的院内转归。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Jan;71(1):87-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.11.029. Epub 2019 Jun 18.
8
A multi-institutional analysis of transcarotid artery revascularization compared to carotid endarterectomy.多机构分析经颈动脉血运重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术的比较。
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Jul;70(1):123-129. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.09.060. Epub 2019 Jan 6.
9
Meta-analysis of the costs of carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy.颈动脉支架置入术与颈动脉内膜切除术成本的荟萃分析。
Br J Surg. 2017 Sep;104(10):1284-1292. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10649.
10
Fixed and variable cost of carotid endarterectomy and stenting in the United States: A comparative study.美国颈动脉内膜切除术和支架置入术的固定成本与可变成本:一项比较研究。
J Vasc Surg. 2017 May;65(5):1398-1406.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.11.062. Epub 2017 Feb 16.

经颈动脉血管重建术与颈动脉内膜切除术及经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术相比的估计成本。

Estimated Cost of Transcarotid Arterial Revascularization Compared With Carotid Endarterectomy and Transfemoral Carotid Stenting.

作者信息

Kanitra John J, Graham Isabella A, Hayward Richard D, Granger Darla K, Berg Richard A, Haouilou Jimmy C

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, USA.

出版信息

Cureus. 2022 Mar 27;14(3):e23539. doi: 10.7759/cureus.23539. eCollection 2022 Mar.

DOI:10.7759/cureus.23539
PMID:35371865
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8957897/
Abstract

Objectives Transcarotid arterial revascularization (TCAR) is associated with a lower risk of stroke or death than transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS). TCAR infers a lower risk of cranial nerve injury and a similar risk of myocardial infarction (MI) than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). There have been no comparative studies on the cost of TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA, which may have important implications for institutional support for the new modality to address carotid artery stenosis. Our aim was to compare the estimated cost profiles of TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA. Methods A review was performed on Medicare patients who underwent TCAR, TF-CAS, or CEA between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and postoperative complications were reviewed. Acute stroke presentations and elective procedures were included. Cost data were obtained from the hospital's finance department. Quantitative variables were compared using analysis of variance, and categorical variables were compared using the chi-square analysis. Results In total, 21 TCAR, 97 TF-CAS, and 26 CEA patients were initially identified. After removing the non-Medicare patients, 17 TCAR, 57 TF-CAS, and 13 CEA patients were included in the analysis. In-hospital stroke, MI, and mortality included three deaths in TF-CAS patients. At 30 days, the stroke rates for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA groups were 0%, 1.8%, and 0%, respectively. The payments for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $15,400 ± 2,100, $23,400 ± 11,800 and $14,300 ± 5,700 (p=0.001), respectively. The estimated costs for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $10,500 ± 3,300, $13,800 ± 14,300, and $12,400 ± 6,000 (p=0.575), respectively. The profit margins for TCAR, TF-CAS, and CEA were $5,100 ± 3,100, $9,600 ± 12,100, and $1,900 ± 6,400 (p=0.032), respectively. There was no significant difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p=0.635) or age (p=0.485) among the three groups. The length of hospital stay was not significantly different (p=0.107). The TF-CAS maintained the highest profit margin (p<0.001) when matched for the same diagnosis-related code (without complications or comorbidities). Urgency classification within the TF-CAS group included 45 elective, four urgent, and eight emergent cases. The profit margin was significantly higher for the elective group than for the emergent group (p=0.002) but not different for elective versus urgent (p=0.503) or urgent versus emergent (p=0.102). All patients who underwent TCAR and CEA were elective. Conclusion The hospital reimbursement and profit margins are higher for TF-CAS than for TCAR. With the increasing data now demonstrating similar outcomes with TF-CAS and CEA, further research is required to examine the long-term cost-effectiveness of TCAR and how this will compare to TF-CAS.

摘要

目的 经颈动脉血管重建术(TCAR)与经股动脉颈动脉支架置入术(TF-CAS)相比,中风或死亡风险更低。与颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)相比,TCAR导致颅神经损伤的风险更低,心肌梗死(MI)风险相似。目前尚无关于TCAR、TF-CAS和CEA成本的比较研究,这可能对机构支持这种治疗颈动脉狭窄的新方式具有重要意义。我们的目的是比较TCAR、TF-CAS和CEA的估计成本概况。方法 对2020年1月1日至2020年12月31日期间接受TCAR、TF-CAS或CEA治疗的医疗保险患者进行回顾性研究。回顾了人口统计学、合并症、手术细节和术后并发症。纳入急性中风病例和择期手术病例。成本数据来自医院财务部门。使用方差分析比较定量变量,使用卡方分析比较分类变量。结果 最初共识别出21例TCAR患者、97例TF-CAS患者和26例CEA患者。剔除非医疗保险患者后,分析纳入了17例TCAR患者、57例TF-CAS患者和13例CEA患者。住院期间中风、MI和死亡率包括TF-CAS组的3例死亡。在30天时,TCAR、TF-CAS和CEA组的中风发生率分别为0%、1.8%和0%。TCAR、TF-CAS和CEA的支付费用分别为15400±2100美元、23400±11800美元和14300±5700美元(p=0.001)。TCAR、TF-CAS和CEA的估计成本分别为10500±3300美元、13800±14300美元和12400±6000美元(p=0.575)。TCAR、TF-CAS和CEA的利润率分别为5100±3100美元、9600±12100美元和1900±6400美元(p=0.032)。三组患者的美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)评分(p=0.635)或年龄(p=0.485)无显著差异。住院时间无显著差异(p=0.107)。当匹配相同的诊断相关编码(无并发症或合并症)时,TF-CAS的利润率最高(p<0.001)。TF-CAS组的紧急程度分类包括45例择期、4例紧急和8例急诊病例。择期组的利润率显著高于急诊组(p=0.002),但择期与紧急组(p=0.503)或紧急与急诊组(p=0.102)之间无差异。所有接受TCAR和CEA的患者均为择期手术。结论 TF-CAS的医院报销和利润率高于TCAR。随着越来越多的数据表明TF-CAS和CEA的结果相似,需要进一步研究来考察TCAR的长期成本效益以及与TF-CAS的比较情况。