Stroke · 2023
Variation in Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurements Among Facilities Seeking Carotid Stenting Facility Accreditation.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jareczek Francis J, Farrell Mary Beth, Lehman Erik B, Sila Cathy, Terry John B, Sacks David, Kalapos Paul, Simon Scott D, Cockroft Kevin M
Аннотация
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.
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.