Department of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
J Neurointerv Surg. 2024 Aug 14;16(9):864-869. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2023-020656.
Reasons for racial disparities in the utilization and outcomes of carotid interventions (carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS)) are not well understood, especially segregation of care associated with carotid intervention. We examined patterns of geographic and provider care segregation in carotid interventions and outcomes.
We used de-identified Medicare datasets to identify CEA and CAS interventions between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019 using validated ICD-10 codes. For patients who underwent carotid intervention, we calculated (1) the proportion of White patients at the hospital, (2) the proportional difference in the proportion of White patients between hospital patients and the county, and (3) provider care segregation by the dissimilarity index for carotid intervention cases. We examined associations between measures of segregation and outcomes.
Despite higher proportions of Black patients in counties with hospitals that provide carotid intervention, lower proportions of Black patients received intervention. The difference in the proportion of White patients comparing CEA patients to the county race distribution was 0.143 (SD 0.297) at the hospital level (for CAS, 0.174 (0.315)). The dissimilarity index for CEA providers was high, with mean (SD) 0.387 (0.274) averaged across all hospitals and higher among CAS providers at 0.472 (0.288). Black patients receiving CEA and CAS (compared with Whites) had reduced odds of discharge home. Better outcomes (inpatient mortality and 30-day mortality) were independently associated with higher proportion of White CAS patients.
In this national study with contemporary data on carotid intervention, we found evidence for segregation of care of both CEA and CAS.
颈动脉介入治疗(颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)和颈动脉支架置入术(CAS))利用和结果的种族差异的原因尚不清楚,特别是与颈动脉介入治疗相关的护理分离。我们检查了颈动脉介入治疗和结果中地理和提供者护理分离的模式。
我们使用去识别的 Medicare 数据集,使用经过验证的 ICD-10 代码,确定 2016 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 12 月 31 日期间的 CEA 和 CAS 介入。对于接受颈动脉介入治疗的患者,我们计算了(1)医院白人患者的比例,(2)医院患者与县之间白人患者比例的比例差异,以及(3)通过颈动脉介入病例的不相似指数来衡量提供者护理的分离程度。我们检查了隔离措施与结果之间的关联。
尽管在提供颈动脉介入治疗的医院所在的县黑人患者比例较高,但接受介入治疗的黑人患者比例较低。CEA 患者与县种族分布相比,白人患者比例的差异在医院水平为 0.143(SD 0.297)(对于 CAS,为 0.174(0.315))。CEA 提供者的不相似指数较高,所有医院的平均值(SD)为 0.387(0.274),CAS 提供者的更高,为 0.472(0.288)。接受 CEA 和 CAS 的黑人患者(与白人相比)出院回家的可能性降低。更好的结果(住院死亡率和 30 天死亡率)与更高比例的白人 CAS 患者独立相关。
在这项具有颈动脉介入治疗当代数据的全国性研究中,我们发现了 CEA 和 CAS 护理分离的证据。