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.

Intraoperative Completion Studies and their Associations with Carotid Endarterectomy Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at assessing outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in dependence of center policy with respect to imaging intraoperative completion study (ICS i ) usage. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although randomized controlled studies are missing, a beneficial effect was shown for ICS i techniques (i.e., angiography and intraoperative duplex ultrasound) after CEA. METHODS: This secondary data analysis is based on the German statutory quality assurance database. Research was funded by Germany's Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund (G-BA Innovationsfonds, 01VSF19016 ISAR-IQ). According to their ICS i policy, hospitals were categorized as routine ICSi (>90%), selective ICSi (10-90%), or sporadic ICSi (<10%) centers . Primary study outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2016, a total of 119,800 patients underwent CEA. In-hospital stroke or death rates were lower in routine ICSicenters (1.7%) compared to selective (2.1%) and sporadic ICSicenters (2.0%). The multivariable regression analysis showed, that in routine ICSicenters , ICS i use was associated with lower rates of stroke or death (aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93). In selective ICSicenters , ICS i was not associated with the occurrence of either of the assessed outcomes. In sporadic ICSicenters , ICS i was associated with higher rates of stroke or death (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 1.26-2.91). CONCLUSIONS: Lowest in-hospital stroke or death rates are achieved in r outine ICSicenters . While ICS i is associated with a lower perioperative risk in r outine ICSicenters , it might act as a surrogate marker for worse outcomes due to intraoperative irregularities in sporadic ICSicenters . Routine use of ICS i is advisable.