Tsai, Thomas T.

Introduction: The relative performance of carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among Medicare beneficiaries in routine clinical practice has not been established. Objective: To compare the performance of CAS relative to CEA among Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: We linked Medicare data (2000-2009) to the Society for Vascular Surgery’s Vascular Registry (SVS-VR; 2005-2008) and to the NCDR® Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry (CARE; 2006-2008/9). Medicare patients aged ≥66 years undergoing CAS or CEA were followed from the procedure date for the outcomes of death, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI) or a composite endpoint for these outcomes. We derived high-dimensional propensity scores using registry and Medicare data to control for patient-level factors and adjusted for provider-level factors including past-year CAS/CEA physician and hospital volume, hospital ownership, teaching affiliation, and hospital size in a Cox regression model comparing CAS to CEA. Results: Among 5,254 SVS-VR (1,999 CAS and 3,255 CEA) and 4,055 CARE (2,824 CAS and 1,231 CEA) patients, CAS patients were more often at higher surgical risk (SVS-VR: 96.7% vs. 44.5%; CARE: 71.3% vs. 44.7%) and had a higher comorbidity burden. Crude outcome risks for death and stroke/TIA were lower for CEA. Adjusting for patient-level factors drove estimates downwards for CAS relative to CEA but only after further adjustment for provider-level factors did the performance of CAS and CEA become comparable on all outcomes (figure 1). Conclusion: Performance of CAS and CEA among Medicare beneficiaries was comparable after accounting for patient- and provider-level factors, which is consistent with landmark trials. Further studies are needed to understand the role of heterogeneity in provider-level characteristics.

ABSTRACTObjectivesIdentifying the distributions and determinants of fluoroscopy time for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundICA and PCI are significant contributors to radiation exposure from medical imaging in the US. Fluoroscopy time is a potentially modifiable determinant of radiation exposure for these procedures, but has not been well characterized in contemporary practice.MethodsWe evaluated the distribution of fluoroscopy time in patients undergoing ICA and/or PCI in the CathPCI Registry®, stratifying patients by numerous clinical scenarios. Hierarchical models were used to determine patient, procedure, operator and hospital‐level factors associated with fluoroscopy time for these procedures.ResultsOur study included a total of 3,295,348 ICA and PCI procedures performed by 9,600 operators from January 2005 through June 2009. There was wide variation in fluoroscopy times for these procedures with median [IQR] fluoroscopy times of 2.6 [1.7–4.5] minutes for ICA, 6.7 [4.2–10.8] minutes for ICA in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 10.1 [6.0–17.4] minutes for PCI, 10.7 [7.0–16.9] minutes for PCI with ICA, and 16.0 [10.6–24.0] minutes for PCI and ICA in patients with prior CABG. Prolonged fluoroscopy times (>30 minutes) were rare for ICA, but occurred in 6.7% of PCIs and 14.7% of PCIs in patients with prior CABG. After accounting for patient characteristics and procedure complexity, operator and hospital‐level factors explained nearly 20% of the variation in fluoroscopy time.ConclusionsFluoroscopy times vary widely during ICA and PCI with operator and hospital‐level factors contributing substantially to these differences. A better understanding of potentially modifiable sources of this variation will elucidate opportunities for enhancing the radiation safety of these procedures. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background— Studies of aortic aneurysm patients have shown that the risk of rupture increases with aortic size. However, few studies of acute aortic dissection patients and aortic size exist. We used data from our registry of acute aortic dissection patients to better understand the relationship between aortic diameter and type A dissection. Methods and Results— We examined 591 type A dissection patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection between 1996 and 2005 (mean age, 60.8 years). Maximum aortic diameters averaged 5.3 cm; 349 (59%) patients had aortic diameters <5.5 cm and 229 (40%) patients had aortic diameters <5.0 cm. Independent predictors of dissection at smaller diameters (<5.5 cm) included a history of hypertension (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 4.57; P =0.04), radiating pain (odds ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 4.0; P =0.03), and increasing age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.05; P =0.03). Marfan syndrome patients were more likely to dissect at larger diameters (odds ratio, 14.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 100; P =0.002). Mortality (27% of patients) was not related to aortic size. Conclusions— The majority of patients with acute type A acute aortic dissection present with aortic diameters <5.5 cm and thus do not fall within current guidelines for elective aneurysm surgery. Methods other than size measurement of the ascending aorta are needed to identify patients at risk for dissection.