JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2015
Hospital variation in carotid stenting outcomes.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hawkins Beau M, Kennedy Kevin F, Aronow Herbert D, Nguyen Louis L, White Christopher J, Rosenfield Kenneth, Normand Sharon-Lise T, Spertus John A, Yeh Robert W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine variation in outcomes for patients receiving carotid artery stenting (CAS) across a sample of U.S. hospitals and assess the extent to which this variation was attributable to differences in case mix and procedural volume.
BACKGROUND: As CAS is increasingly being used throughout the United States, assessing hospital variation in CAS outcomes is critical to understanding and improving the quality of care for patients with carotid artery disease.
METHODS: Hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Carotid Artery Endarterectomy and Revascularization Registry contributing more than 5 CAS procedures from 2005 through 2013 were eligible for inclusion. We estimated unadjusted and risk-standardized rates of in-hospital stroke or death for each participating hospital using a previously validated prediction model and applying hospital-level random effects.
RESULTS: There were 188 hospitals contributing 19,381 CAS procedures during the period of interest. Unadjusted and risk-standardized in-hospital stroke or death rates ranged from 0% to 18.8% and 1.2% to 4.7%, respectively. Operator and hospital volumes were not significant predictors of outcomes after adjustment for case mix (p = 0.15 and p = 0.09, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: CAS outcomes vary 4-fold among hospitals, even after adjustment for differences in case mix. Future work is needed to identify the sources of this variation and develop initiatives to improve patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: As CAS is increasingly being used throughout the United States, assessing hospital variation in CAS outcomes is critical to understanding and improving the quality of care for patients with carotid artery disease.
METHODS: Hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Carotid Artery Endarterectomy and Revascularization Registry contributing more than 5 CAS procedures from 2005 through 2013 were eligible for inclusion. We estimated unadjusted and risk-standardized rates of in-hospital stroke or death for each participating hospital using a previously validated prediction model and applying hospital-level random effects.
RESULTS: There were 188 hospitals contributing 19,381 CAS procedures during the period of interest. Unadjusted and risk-standardized in-hospital stroke or death rates ranged from 0% to 18.8% and 1.2% to 4.7%, respectively. Operator and hospital volumes were not significant predictors of outcomes after adjustment for case mix (p = 0.15 and p = 0.09, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: CAS outcomes vary 4-fold among hospitals, even after adjustment for differences in case mix. Future work is needed to identify the sources of this variation and develop initiatives to improve patient outcomes.