Variation in Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurements Among Facilities Seeking Carotid Stenting Facility Accreditation.

BACKGROUND: Based on the inclusion criteria of clinical trials, the degree of cervical carotid artery stenosis is often used as an indication for stent placement in the setting of extracranial carotid atherosclerotic disease. However, the rigor and consistency with which stenosis is measured outside of clinical trials are unclear. In an agreement study using a cross-sectional sample, we compared the percent stenosis as measured by real-world physician operators to that measured by independent expert reviewers. METHODS: As part of the carotid stenting facility accreditation review, images were obtained from 68 cases of patients who underwent carotid stent placement. Data collected included demographics, stroke severity measures, and the documented degree of stenosis, termed operator-reported stenosis (ORS), by 34 operators from 14 clinical sites. The ORS was compared with reviewer-measured stenosis (RMS) as assessed by 5 clinicians experienced in treating carotid artery disease. RESULTS: The median ORS was 90.0% (interquartile range, 80.0%-90.0%) versus a median RMS of 61.1% (interquartile range, 49.8%-73.6%), with a median difference of 21.8% (interquartile range, 13.7%-34.4%), P<0.001. The median difference in ORS and RMS for asymptomatic versus symptomatic patients was not statistically different (24.6% versus 19.6%; P=0.406). The median difference between ORS and RMS for facilities granted initial accreditation was smaller compared with facilities whose accreditation was delayed (17.9% versus 25.5%, P=0.035). The intraclass correlation between ORS and RMS was 0.16, indicating poor agreement. If RMS measurements were used, 72% of symptomatic patients and 10% of asymptomatic patients in the population examined would meet the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria for stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world operators tend to overestimate carotid artery stenosis compared with external expert reviewers. Measurements from facilities granted initial accreditation were closer to expert measurements than those from facilities whose accreditation was delayed. Since decisions regarding carotid revascularization are often based on percent stenosis, such measuring discrepancies likely lead to increased procedural utilization.

Facility perception of nuclear cardiology accreditation: Results of an Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) survey.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act requires accreditation for all non-hospital suppliers of nuclear cardiology, nuclear medicine, and positron emission tomography (PET) studies as a condition of reimbursement. The perceptions of these facilities regarding the value and impact of the accreditation process are unknown. We conducted an electronic survey to assess the value of nuclear cardiology accreditation. METHODS: A request to participate in an electronic survey was sent to the medical and technical directors (n = 5,721) of all facilities who had received Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) Nuclear/PET accreditation. Demographic information, as well as, opinions on the value of accreditation as it relates to 16 quality metrics was obtained. RESULTS: There were 664 (11.6%) respondents familiar with the accreditation process of which 26% were hospital-based and 74% were nonhospital-based. Of the quality metrics examined, the process was perceived as leading to improvements by a majority of all respondents for 10 (59%) metrics including report standardization, report completeness, guideline adherence, deficiency identification, report timeliness, staff knowledge, facility distinction, deficiency correction, acquisition standardization, and image quality. Overall, the global perceived improvement was greater for hospital-based facilities (63% vs 57%; P < .001). Ninety-five percent of respondents felt that accreditation was important. Hospital-based facilities were more likely to feel that accreditation demonstrates a commitment to quality (43% vs 33%, P = .029), while nonhospital-based facilities were more likely to feel accreditation is important for reimbursement (50% vs 29%, P≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Although the accreditation process is demanding, the results of the IAC survey indicate that the accreditation process has a positive perceived impact for the majority of examined quality metrics, suggesting the facilities find the process to be valuable.

Comparison of endovascular and surface cooling during unruptured cerebral aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: To compare endovascular versus surface methods for the induction and reversal of hypothermia during neurosurgery in a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective open craniotomy for repair of an unruptured cerebral aneurysm (n = 153) were randomly assigned (2:1) to undergo whole-body hypothermia to 33 degrees C, either with an endovascular cooling device placed in the inferior vena cava via the femoral vein (n = 92) or with a surface convective air blanket (n = 61). Active rewarming was accomplished using the same devices. RESULTS: Cooling rates in endovascular and surface blanket groups averaged 4.77 and 0.87 degrees C/h, respectively (P < 0.001). When the first temporary arterial or aneurysm clip was placed, 99% of endovascular patients and 20% of surface blanket patients had reached the target of 33 degrees C (P < 0.001). Obese patients were cooled efficiently with the endovascular approach (3.56 degrees C/h). Rewarming rates averaged 1.88 degrees C/h for endovascular patients and 0.69 degrees C/h for surface blanket patients (P < 0.001). By the end of surgery, 89 and 53% of these patients, respectively, had rewarmed to at least 35 degrees C (P < 0.001). On leaving the operating room, 14% of endovascular patients and 28% of surface blanket patients were still intubated (P = 0.035). The overall safety of the two procedures was comparable. No clinically significant catheter-related thrombotic, bleeding, or infectious complications were reported in the endovascular group. CONCLUSION: Endovascular cooling provided superior induction, maintenance, and reversal of hypothermia compared with the surface blanket, without an increase in complications. Endovascular cooling may have clinical benefit for patients undergoing cerebrovascular surgery, as well as patients with acute stroke, head injury, or acute myocardial infarction.