For-Profit Hospital Status and Carotid Artery Stent Utilization in US Hospitals Performing Carotid Revascularization

Association between hospital ownership and patient selection, management, and outcomes after carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting : - Secondary data analysis of the Bavarian statutory quality assurance database

BACKGROUND

This study analyses the association between hospital ownership and patient selection, treatment, and outcome of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS).

METHODS

The analysis is based on the Bavarian subset of the nationwide German statutory quality assurance database. All patients receiving CEA or CAS for carotid artery stenosis between 2014 and 2018 were included. Hospitals were subdivided into four groups: university hospitals, public hospitals, hospitals owned by charitable organizations, and private hospitals. The primary outcome was any stroke or death until discharge from hospital. Research was funded by Germany's Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund (01VSF19016 ISAR-IQ).

RESULTS

In total, 22,446 patients were included. The majority of patients were treated in public hospitals (62%), followed by private hospitals (17%), university hospitals (16%), and hospitals under charitable ownership (6%). Two thirds of patients were male (68%), and the median age was 72 years. CAS was most often applied in university hospitals (25%) and most rarely used in private hospitals (9%). Compared to university hospitals, patients in private hospitals were more likely asymptomatic (65% vs. 49%). In asymptomatic patients, the risk of stroke or death was 1.3% in university hospitals, 1.5% in public hospitals, 1.0% in hospitals of charitable owners, and 1.2% in private hospitals. In symptomatic patients, these figures were 3.0%, 2.5%, 3.4%, and 1.2% respectively. Univariate analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between hospital groups. In the multivariable analysis, compared to university hospitals, the odds ratio of stroke or death in asymptomatic patients treated by CEA was significantly lower in charitable hospitals (OR 0.19 [95%-CI 0.07-0.56, p = 0.002]) and private hospitals (OR 0.47 [95%-CI 0.23-0.98, p = 0.043]). In symptomatic patients (elective treatment, CEA), patients treated in private or public hospitals showed a significantly lower odds ratio compared to university hospitals (0.36 [95%-CI 0.17-0.72, p = 0.004] and 0.65 [95%-CI 0.42-1.00, p = 0.048], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital ownership was related to patient selection and treatment, but not generally to outcomes. The lower risk of stroke or death in the subgroup of electively treated patients in private hospitals might be due to the right timing, the choice of treatment modality or actually to better structural and process quality.

Optimal Management of Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Management of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACAS), including carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid artery stenting (CAS), and best medical treatment (BMT), remains inconsistent in current practice. Early studies reported a benefit of CEA vs. BMT; however, the current risk-benefit profile of invasive therapy lacks consensus. By evaluating the effects of modern BMT vs. invasive intervention on patient outcomes, this study aimed to influence the future management of ACAS.

METHODS

A systematic review and series of network meta-analyses were performed assessing peri-operative (within 30 days) and long term (30 days - 5 years) stroke and mortality risk between ACAS interventions. Total stroke, major, minor, ipsilateral, and contralateral stroke subtypes were assessed independently. Traditional (pre-2000) and modern (post-2000) BMT were compared to assess clinical improvements in medical therapy over the previous two decades. Risks of myocardial infarction (MI) and cranial nerve injury (CNI) were also assessed.

RESULTS

Seventeen reports of 14 310 patients with > 50% ACAS were included. CEA reduced the odds of a peri-operative stroke event occurring vs. CAS (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 - 2.2 [0 - 20 fewer/1 000]). CEA and CAS reduced the long term odds of minor strokes (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 - 0.59 [20 fewer/1 000]) and ipsilateral strokes (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19 - 0.39 [30 fewer/1 000]) vs. all BMT. CEA reduced the odds of major strokes and combined stroke and mortality vs. traditional BMT; however, no difference was found between CEA and modern BMT. CAS reduced the odds of peri-operative MI (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0. 26 - 0.91) and CNI (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 - 0.42) vs. CEA.

CONCLUSION

Modern BMT demonstrates similar reductions in major stroke, combined stroke, and mortality to CEA. The overall risk reductions are low and data were unavailable to assess subgroups which may benefit from intervention. However, BMT carries the potential to reduce the requirement for surgical intervention in patients with ACAS.

Prognostication in neurology

Prognosticating is central to primary palliative care in neurology. Many neurologic diseases carry a high burden of troubling symptoms, and many individuals consider health states due to neurologic disease worse than death. Many patients and families report high levels of need for information at all disease stages, including information about prognosis. There are many barriers to communicating prognosis including prognostic uncertainty, lack of training and experience, fear of destroying hope, and not enough time. Developing the right mindset, tools, and skills can improve one's ability to formulate and communicate prognosis. Prognosticating is subject to many biases which can dramatically affect the quality of patient care; it is important for providers to recognize and reduce them. Patients and surrogates often do not hear what they are told, and even when they hear correctly, they form their own opinions. With practice and self-reflection, one can improve their prognostic skills, help patients and families create honest roadmaps of the future, and deliver high-quality person-centered care.

Early Outcomes After Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) represent options to treat many patients with carotid stenosis. Although randomized trial data are plentiful, estimated rates of morbidity and mortality for both CEA and CAS have varied substantially.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate rates of adverse outcomes after CAS and CEA in a large national database.

METHODS

We analyzed 84 191 adult patients undergoing elective, nonemergent CAS (n = 81 361) or CEA (n = 2830), from 2011 to 2018, in the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Odds of adverse outcomes (30-d rates of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac arrest, prolonged length of stay (LOS), readmission, reoperation, and mortality) were evaluated in propensity-matched (n = 2821) cohorts through logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the propensity-matched cohorts, CAS had increased odds of periprocedural stroke (odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% CI 1.32-2.95) and decreased odds of cardiac arrest (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.84) and 30-d reoperation (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80) compared to CEA. Relative odds of MI, prolonged LOS, discharge to destination other than home, 30-d readmission, or 30-d mortality were statistically similar. In the unmatched patient population, rates of adverse outcomes with CEA were constant over time; however, for CAS, rates of stroke increased over time. In both the matched and unmatched patient cohorts, patients 70 yr and older had lower rates of post-procedural stroke with CEA, but not with CAS, compared to younger patients.

CONCLUSION

In a propensity-matched analysis of a large, prospectively collected, national, surgical database, CAS was associated with increased odds of periprocedural stroke, which increased over time. Rates of MI and death were not significantly different between the 2 procedures.

Carotid Revascularization: Current Practice and Future Directions

Carotid stenosis is responsible for approximately 15% of ischemic strokes. Carotid revascularization significantly decreases patients' stroke risk. Carotid endarterectomy has first-line therapy for moderate-to-severe carotid stenosis after a series of pivotal randomized controlled trials were published almost 30 years ago. Revascularization with carotid stenting has become a popular and effective alternative in a select subpopulation of patients. We review the current state of the literature regarding revascularization indications, patient selection, advantages of each revascularization approach, timing of intervention, and emerging interventional techniques, such as transcarotid artery revascularization.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of results of simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

Although staged procedures to treat bilateral carotid artery stenosis are mainstream, a growing number of articles on simultaneous bilateral carotid artery stenting (SBCAS) have been published. Thus, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SBCAS.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify all studies reporting SBCAS from January 1, 2000, to October 1, 2017. Patients' characteristics, comorbidities, technical success, deaths, and complications were collected and analyzed. Forest plots were drawn with either a random-effects model or fixed-effects model according to their heterogeneities. Publication biases were tested by funnel plots and linear regression test.

RESULTS

Overall, 333 patients with bilateral carotid stenosis in 10 retrospective studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The mean age was 67.4 years; 75% of the patients were male, and 85.6% of them were symptomatic. The mean severity of stenosis was 82.1%. The overall technical success rate reached 99.38% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96.58%-100.00%). The pooled incidences of periprocedural complications were as follows: hemodynamic depression, 46.12% (95% CI, 33.16%-59.35%); hyperperfusion syndrome, 3.33% (95% CI, 1.66%-5.55%); stroke, 3.20% (95% CI, 1.59%-5.36%); myocardial infarction (MI), 0.60% (95% CI, 0.00%-1.43%); and death, 1.20% (95% CI, 0.03%-2.38%). The occurrence of a periprocedural primary end point, defined as a combination of any stroke, MI, and death, affected 4.28% (95% CI, 2.37%-6.71%) of patients. For long-term patency, there were too few follow-up results available to evaluate.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for hyperperfusion syndrome, all other periprocedural complications including hemodynamic depression, stroke, and MI were comparable with the literature reporting unilateral carotid artery stenting. However, the analysis was based on retrospective studies. Further studies, including prospective and randomized controlled studies, are needed to confirm these results.

Carotid Artery Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Artery Stenting for Patients with Contralateral Carotid Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Results from studies investigating the effect of contralateral carotid occlusion (CCO) in patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) are variable in the literature. We sought to determine whether CEA or CAS is the optimal revascularization approach for patients with CCO.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effects model meta-analysis was conducted, and the I² statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed as needed.

RESULTS

Five retrospective observational cohort studies comprising 6346 patients were included. Patients in the CEA group had a significantly lower risk of 30-day periprocedural mortality (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.71; I² = 0%). However, no significant differences were identified in terms of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) between the 2 groups. Subgroup analyses of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients did not yield significant differences for stroke, MI, and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CCO can safely undergo both CAS and CEA with similar risks of stroke, MI, and MACE. However, patients treated with CEA have a lower risk of 30-day periprocedural mortality. Future studies can help further clarify the ideal approach for these patients.