Goldstein L B, Bonito A J, Matchar D B, Duncan P W, Samsa G P
Center for Health Policy Research and Education, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Stroke. 1996 May;27(5):801-6. doi: 10.1161/01.str.27.5.801.
Data from several randomized clinical trials concerning the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy (CE) in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic stenoses of the extracranial carotid artery are now available. Yet, there are few data concerning the patterns of use of CE by physicians for their patients at risk for stroke. These data are critical for the rational allocation of resources and targeting of educational efforts.
Between August 1993 and February 1994, we surveyed the stroke prevention practices of a stratified random sample of 2000 US physicians. The survey queried the perceived availability and use of diagnostic studies and surgery for specific types of patients who might be considered candidates for CE.
Of eligible physicians, 67% (n = 1006) completed the survey. Seventy percent reported that they always or often obtain carotid ultrasonography for evaluation of patients with asymptomatic bruits; 89% do so in patients with recent transient ischemic attack or minor stroke (P < .001). For asymptomatic patients, 13% always or often obtain a cerebral angiogram if carotid ultrasonography indicates 50% to 70% stenosis versus 33% if carotid ultrasonography indicates > 70% stenosis (P < .001). For asymptomatic patients with > 70% stenosis, a cerebral angiogram was reported as seldom or never used by 42% of physicians who viewed the test as readily available versus 67% if cerebral angiography was perceived as not readily available (P = .005). Multinomial multiple logistic regression analysis showed that symptom status, the degree of stenosis, perceived availability of CE, and physician specialty independently contributed to the explained variance in the reported use of CE (P < .001). The odds of performing CE were approximately four times greater in patients recent symptoms compared with asymptomatic patients (P < .001) and four times greater in patients with > 70% stenosis compared with patients with 50% to 70% stenosis (P < .001). Physicians who perceived CE as not being readily available were one third as likely to report using the procedure compared with physicians who reported having ready access (P = .004). CE was reported as being always or often used by more than 80% of neurologists and surgeons but by only about half of internists and noninternist primary care physicians for patients with newly symptomatic high-grade stenosis (P < .001). Almost one in four noninternist primary care physicians responded that they would seldom or never use CE for these patients.
These data show that (1) symptom status and degree of carotid artery stenosis strongly influence the reported frequency with which CE is used by practicing physicians; (2) the perceived availability of cerebral angiography and CE significantly affects their reported frequency of use; and (3) physician specialty significantly influences the reported frequency of use of CE.
目前已有多项关于颈动脉内膜切除术(CE)治疗颅外颈动脉有症状和无症状狭窄患者疗效的随机临床试验数据。然而,关于医生对有中风风险患者使用CE的模式的数据却很少。这些数据对于合理分配资源和确定教育重点至关重要。
在1993年8月至1994年2月期间,我们对2000名美国医生的分层随机样本进行了中风预防实践调查。该调查询问了针对可能被视为CE候选患者的特定类型患者,诊断性研究和手术的可获得性及使用情况。
符合条件的医生中,67%(n = 1006)完成了调查。70%的医生报告说,他们总是或经常为无症状颈部杂音患者进行颈动脉超声检查;89%的医生会为近期有短暂性脑缺血发作或轻度中风的患者进行此项检查(P <.001)。对于无症状患者,如果颈动脉超声显示狭窄50%至70%,13%的医生总是或经常进行脑血管造影,而如果颈动脉超声显示狭窄> 70%,这一比例为33%(P <.001)。对于狭窄> 70%的无症状患者,42%认为该检查容易获得的医生报告很少或从不使用脑血管造影,而认为脑血管造影不容易获得的医生中这一比例为67%(P =.005)。多项多项逻辑回归分析表明,症状状态、狭窄程度、CE的可获得性以及医生专业独立地影响了报告的CE使用差异(P <.001)。与无症状患者相比,近期有症状的患者进行CE的几率大约高四倍(P <.00),与狭窄50%至70%的患者相比,狭窄> 70%的患者进行CE的几率高四倍(P <.001)。认为CE不容易获得的医生报告使用该手术的可能性仅为报告容易获得的医生的三分之一(P =.004)。对于新出现症状的高度狭窄患者,超过80%的神经科医生和外科医生报告总是或经常使用CE,但内科医生和非内科初级保健医生中只有约一半这样做(P <.001)。近四分之一的非内科初级保健医生回答说,他们很少或从不为这些患者使用CE。
这些数据表明:(1)症状状态和颈动脉狭窄程度强烈影响执业医生报告的CE使用频率;(2)脑血管造影和CE的可获得性显著影响其报告的使用频率;(3)医生专业显著影响CE的报告使用频率。