Society of vascular surgery vascular registry comparison of carotid artery stenting outcomes for atherosclerotic vs nonatherosclerotic carotid artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: The Vascular Registry (VR) on carotid procedures collects long-term outcomes on carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) patients. The purpose of this report is to describe in-hospital and 30-day CAS outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic carotid artery disease (CAD; atherosclerosis [ATH]) compared to recurrent carotid stenosis (RES) and radiation-induced stenosis (RAD). METHODS: The VR collects provider-reported data on CAS using a Web-based data management system. For this report, data were analyzed at the preprocedure, procedure, predischarge, and 30-day intervals. RESULTS: As of November 20, 2008, there were 4017 patients with CAS with discharge data, of which 72% were due to ATH. A total of 2321 patients were available for 30-day outcomes analysis (1623 ATH, 529 restenosis, 119 radiation, 17 dissection, 3 trauma, and 30 other). Baseline demographics showed that ATH occurred in older patients (72-years-old), had the greatest history of coronary artery disease (CAD; 62%), myocardial infarction (MI; 24%), valvular heart disease (8%), arrhythmia (16%), congestive heart failure (CHF; 16%), diabetes mellitus (DM; 35%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 20%). RES had a higher degree of baseline stenosis (87.0 vs 85.8 ATH; P = .010), were less likely to be symptomatic (35.5% vs 46.3% ATH; P < .001), but had a greater history of hypertension, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and smoking. RAD was seen in younger patients (66.6 vs 71.7 ATH; P < .001), were more likely to be male (78.2% vs 60.9% ATH; P < .001), and had less comorbidities overall, with the exception of amaurosis fugax, smoking, and cancer. The only statistically significant difference in perioperative rates was in transient ischemic attack (TIA; 2.7% ATH vs 0.9% RES; P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences in in-hospital death/stroke/MI (ATH 5.4%, RES 3.8%, RAD 4.2%) or at 30 days (ATH 7.1%, RES 5.1%, RAD 5.0%). Even after adjusting for age, gender, symptomatology, CHF, and renal failure, the only statistically significant difference at 30 days was amaurosis fugax between ATH and RAD (odds ratio [OR] 0.13; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Although patients with ATH have statistically significant comorbidities, they did not have statistically significant increased rates of death/stroke/MI during hospitalization or within 30 days after discharge when compared to RES or RAD. The CAS event rates for ATH vs RES and RAD are similar, despite prior published reports. Symptomatic ATH have statistically significant higher rates of death/stroke/MI compared to asymptomatic cohort. Finally, consistent and accurate entry of long-term data beyond initial hospitalization is essential to fully assess CAS outcomes since a significant number of adverse events occur in the interval from hospital discharge to 30 days.

It's about time: physicians' perceptions of time constraints in primary care medical practice in three national healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: As physicians are pressured to deliver an increasing number of preventive services, follow guidelines, engage in evidence-based practice, and deliver patient-centered care in managerially driven organizations, they struggle with how much control they have over their time. METHODS: A secondary analysis was conducted with data from 3 parallel studies of clinical decision making in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States with 128 physicians per country. Physicians reported how much time they were allocated and how much time they needed for high-quality care for new patient appointments, routine consultations, and complete physicals. They also reported how much control they had over their time in the office and spending adequate time with patients. RESULTS: German, British, and American physicians were allocated (on average) 16/11/32 minutes for a new patient appointment, 6/10/18 minutes for a routine visit, and 12/20/36 minutes for a complete physical, but felt that they needed more time. Over half of German and American physicians felt that they always or usually had control over the hours they were required to be in their office or spending sufficient time with their patients while less than half of British physicians felt this way. CONCLUSION: German physicians had the least time allocated and needed for most types of appointment. American physicians had the most time allocated and needed for each type of appointment. However, British physicians felt they had the least control over time in their office and spending sufficient time with patients.

Carotid revascularization using endarterectomy or stenting systems (CaRESS): 4-year outcomes.

PURPOSE: To examine the 4-year outcomes from Carotid Revascularization using Endarterectomy or Stenting Systems (CaRESS) in light of the current reimbursement guidelines for carotid artery stenting (CAS) from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). METHODS: CaRESS was designed as a prospective, nonrandomized comparative cohort study of a broad-risk population of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with carotid stenosis. In all, 397 patients (247 men; mean age 71 years, range 43-89) were enrolled and underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA; n = 254) or protected CAS (n = 143). More than 90% of patients had >75% stenosis; two thirds were asymptomatic. The primary endpoints included (1) all-cause mortality, (2) any stroke, and (3) myocardial infarction (MI), as well as the composite endpoints of (4) death and any nonfatal stroke and (5) death, nonfatal stroke, and MI. The secondary endpoints were restenosis, repeat angiography, and carotid revascularization. All patients were classified with respect to surgical risk, symptom status, and stenosis grade based on criteria published by the CMS. In addition, separate analyses were performed comparing genders and octogenarians to those <80 years old. RESULTS: No significant differences in the primary outcome measures were found between the CEA and CAS groups in the 4-year analysis. The incidences of any stroke at 4 years were 9.6% for CEA and 8.6% for CAS (p = 0.444); when combined with death, the composite death/nonfatal stroke rates were 26.5% for CEA versus 21.8% for CAS (p = 0.361). The composite endpoint of death, nonfatal stroke, and MI at 4 years was 27.0% in CEA versus 21.7% in CAS (p = 0.273) patients. The secondary endpoints of restenosis (p = 0.014) and repeat angiography (p = 0.052) were higher in the CAS arm. There were no differences in any of the subgroups stratified according the CMS guidelines or in the gender comparison. Four-year incidences of death/nonfatal stroke and death/nonfatal stroke/MI were higher in the CEA arm among patients <80 years of age (p = 0.049 and p = 0.030, respectively). There were no significant differences between these incidences in the octogenarian subgroup. CONCLUSION: The risk of death or nonfatal stroke 4 years following CAS with distal protection is equivalent to CEA in a broad category of patients with carotid stenosis. There were no significant differences in stroke or mortality rates between high-risk and non-high-risk patients and no differences in outcomes between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. After 4 years, CAS had a 2-fold higher restenosis rate compared to CEA. The risk of death/stroke or death/stroke/MI appears to be higher following CEA than CAS among patients <80 years of age, yet there is no statistically significant relationship between death, stroke, or MI among octogenarians.

Lifeline registry of endovascular aneurysm repair: open repair surgical controls in clinical trials.

PURPOSE: The improvement of available endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) devices is critical for the advancement of patient care in vascular surgery. The goal of this article is to report a highly detailed, closely monitored, audited, pooled multicenter cohort of open surgical abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs that has potential for use in future EVAR studies as a control data set. METHODS: Open surgical AAA repair data from four investigational device exemption clinical aortic endograft trials were tested for poolability, merged, and analyzed for the intervals of 0 to 30 days and 31 to 365 days. RESULTS: The data set includes 323 open patients (83% men; mean age, 70 years). Operative mortality at 30 days was 2.8%. The mean age of women was 3 years older than men, and mortality at 30 days for women was 5.7% compared with 2.2% for men (P = .18). Operative mortality for patients with large AAAs (>/=5.5 cm, 3.6%) was not different than for patients with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm, 2.4%, P = .54). All-cause mortality at 1 year was 6.7%, with significant predictors including age, sex, and renal failure. Women had 2.6-fold greater 1-year all-cause mortality rate (13.2%) than men (5.4%, P = .04), but statistical significance was lost after correction for age. Two additional AAA-related deaths occurred between days 31 and 365, resulting in a 1-year AAA-related mortality of 3.5%. CONCLUSION: This data set provides a tightly controlled, thoroughly detailed, and audited experience that has the potential to serve as an open control group for future EVAR trials.

The intended and unintended consequences of clinical guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: First, we examine whether clinical guidelines, designed to improve health care and reduce disparities in clinical practice, are achieving their intended consequences. Second, we contemplate potential unintended consequences of clinical guidelines. METHOD: As part of a factorial experiment we presented primary care doctors (n = 192) with clinically authentic vignettes of a 'patient' with already diagnosed diabetes with an emerging foot neuropathy. Their proposed clinical actions were compared with established practice guidelines for this clinical situation. RESULTS: After establishing the existence of consistent socioeconomic disparities in the proposed management of the case presented, we found that reported use of practice guidelines had no measurable effect towards their reduction (one intended consequence). However, the reported use of practice guidelines appeared to precipitate more clinical actions, without eliminating documented disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other research we find that clinical practice guidelines are not producing a principal intended result, and may even produce unintended consequences.