Yolcu, Yagiz U.

Introduction: Several clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of a carotid revascularization procedure excluded patients above age 80. In the current study, we sought to assess the differences in characteristics of octogenarians undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid stenosis using “real-world” data from a national surgical quality registry. Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) targeted datasets for CEA and CAS were queried for patients aged ≥80 years between 2012-2018. Results: We identified 5,814 patients undergoing CEA and 189 patients undergoing CAS. Patients in the CAS group were more likely to be ≥90 years (p=0.004), diabetic (p=0.04), had a history of CHF (p=0.012) and a bleeding-disorder (p<0.001). Patients in the CAS group were also more likely to have high risk anatomy (p<0.001), high-risk-physiology (p=0.028). Ninety-nine (52.4%) patients in the CAS group and 2,775 (47.7%) in the CEA group were symptomatic, with most patients in both groups presenting with an ipsilateral stroke. Among asymptomatic patients, 64 (74%) in the CAS group and 2222 (72.7%) in the CEA group had severe/total stenosis (>80%-100%) of the ipsilateral carotid, while 13(14.5%) in the CAS group and 302 (11%) in the CEA group had severe or total stenosis of contralateral carotid. Among symptomatic patients, 58(61.7%) in the CAS group and 1527 (57.5%) in the CEA group were found to have severe/total stenosis of the ipsilateral-carotid, while 12(12.8%) in the CAS group and 208(7.8%) in the CEA group were found to have severe/total occlusion of the contralateral carotid. In the carotid endarterectomy group, 12.2% (n=711) underwent CEA-alone, 44.3% (n=2,575) CEA with angioplasty, 29.9% (n=1,737) CEA with angioplasty and shunt, 2.9% (n=166) CEA with shunt and 10.7%(n=166) eversion CEA. In the CAS group, 52.4%(n=99) underwent CAS with a single tapered stent, 29.1%(n=55) CAS with single tapered stent with CPD, 11.1%(n=21) single straight stent with CPD and 1.6%(n=3) a single straight stent alone. Conclusion: These analyses from real-world data show that there may be some differences in demographic and comorbid characteristics between octogenarians undergoing CAS and CEA.

Introduction: Due to their exclusion from most clinical trials, outcomes of carotid revascularization via a carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) among octogenarians are not well studied. Herein, we present analysis of thirty-day stroke and mortality of patients aged ≥ 80 using real-world data from a national surgical quality registry. Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) targeted dataset for CEA and CAS was queried for patients aged ≥ 80 undergoing CEA and CAS between 2012-2018. Results: A total of 94 and 2,656 patients aged ≥ 80 with symptomatic carotid stenosis undergoing CAS and CEA (respectively) were identified. Patients in the CAS group were more likely to be over 90 (p=0.006). Patients in the CAS group were more likely to have high-risk anatomy (p<0.001) and more likely to be on aspirin preoperatively (p=0.02) but less likely to have higher ASA (p<0.001). Most patients in the group presented with an ipsilateral stroke (CAS: 43.6% and CEA: 41.7%). The rate of thirty-day composite outcome (stroke or death) was found to be 5.3% in the CAS group and 4.5% in the CEA group (p=0.714) (stroke: 2.1% for CAS and 3.2% for CEA; death: 4.3% for CAS and 1.7% for CEA). Upon multivariable analysis, procedure type (CAS vs CEA) was not found to be associated with the composite-outcome (OR 1.1, 95%CI 0.43-2.82,p=0.836). Symptom presentation other than ipsilateral stroke was found to be associated with significantly decreased odds of 30-day composite outcome (amaurosis-fugax/transient monocular blindness: OR 0.42,95%CI 0.21-0.86, p=0.02; TIA: OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.42-0.93,p=0.02), while higher age was found to be associated with significantly increased odds (OR 1.512, 95%CI 1.01-2.24, p=0.02). Conclusion: Real world analysis from a surgical quality registry show that both CAS and CEA are associated with optimal 30-day outcomes among octogenarians with symptomatic carotid stenosis.

OBJECTIVEThe National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and National Readmissions Database (NRD) are two widely used databases for research studies. However, they may not provide generalizable information in regard to individual institutions. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to evaluate 30-day readmissions following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) procedures by using these two national databases and an institutional cohort.METHODSThe NSQIP and NRD were queried for patients undergoing elective ACDF and PLF, with the addition of an institutional cohort. The outcome of interest was 30-day readmissions following ACDF and PLF, which were unplanned and related to the index procedure. Subsequently, univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the predictors of 30-day readmissions by using both databases and the institutional cohort.RESULTSAmong all identified risk factors, only hypertension was found to be a common risk factor between NRD and the institutional cohort following ACDF. NSQIP and the institutional cohort both showed length of hospital stay to be a significant predictor for 30-day related readmission following PLF. There were no overlapping variables among all 3 cohorts for either ACDF or PLF. Additionally, the national databases identified a greater number of risk factors for 30-day related readmissions than did the institutional cohort for both procedures.CONCLUSIONSOverall, significant differences were seen among all 3 cohorts with regard to top predictors of 30-day unplanned readmissions following ACDF and PLF. The higher quantity of significant predictors found in the national databases may suggest that looking at single-institution series for such analyses may result in underestimation of important variables affecting patient outcomes, and that big data may be helpful in addressing this concern.

OBJECTIVEPlatelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a biological agent obtained by centrifuging a sample of blood and retrieving a high concentration of platelets and plasma components. The concentrate is then stimulated for platelet secretion of various growth factors and cytokines. Although it is not widely used in clinical practice, its role in augmenting bony union among patients undergoing spinal fusion has been assessed in several clinical studies. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature to determine the efficacy of PRP use in spinal fusion procedures.METHODSA comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE for studies from all available dates. From eligible studies, data regarding the fusion rate and method of assessing fusion, estimated blood loss (EBL), and baseline and final visual analog scale (VAS) scores were collected as the primary outcomes of interest. Patients were grouped by those undergoing spinal fusion with PRP and bone graft (PRP group) and those only with bone graft (graft-only group).RESULTSThe literature search resulted in 207 articles. Forty-five full-text articles were screened, of which 11 studies were included, resulting in a meta-analysis including 741 patients. Patients without PRP were more likely to have a successful fusion at the last follow-up compared with those with PRP in their bone grafts (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34–0.84; p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference with regard to change in VAS scores (OR 0.00, 95% CI −2.84 to 2.84; p > 0.99) or change in EBL (OR 3.67, 95% CI −67.13–74.48; p = 0.92) between the groups.CONCLUSIONSThis study found that the additional use of PRP was not associated with any significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes and was actually found to be associated with lower fusion rates compared with standard grafting techniques. Thus, PRP may have a limited role in augmenting spinal fusion.

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N 2 QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: “1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated ‘risk models’ to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies.” The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

OBJECTIVE The nature of the volume-outcome relationship in cases with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains unclear, with considerable interhospital variation in patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to understand the state of the volume-outcome relationship at different levels of trauma centers in the United States. METHODS The authors queried the National Trauma Data Bank for the years 2007–2014 for patients with severe TBI. Case volumes for each level of trauma center organized into quintiles (Q1–Q5) served as the primary predictor. Analyzed outcomes included in-hospital mortality, total hospital length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Multivariable regression models were performed for in-hospital mortality, overall complications, and total hospital and ICU LOSs to adjust for possible confounders. The analysis was stratified by level designation of the trauma center. Statistical significance was established at p < 0.001 to avoid a type I error due to a large sample size. RESULTS A total of 122,445 patients were included. Adjusted analysis did not demonstrate a significant relationship between increasing hospital volume of severe TBI cases and in-hospital mortality, complications, and nonhome hospital discharge disposition among level I–IV trauma centers. However, among level II trauma centers, hospital LOS was longer for the highest volume quintile (adjusted mean difference [MD] for Q5: 2.83 days, 95% CI 1.40–4.26 days, p < 0.001, reference = Q1). For level III and IV trauma centers, both hospital LOS and ICU LOS were longer for the highest volume quintile (adjusted MD for Q5: LOS 4.6 days, 95% CI 2.3–7.0 days, p < 0.001; ICU LOS 3.2 days, 95% CI 1.6–4.8 days, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Higher volumes of severe TBI cases at a lower level of trauma center may be associated with a longer LOS. These results may assist policymakers with target interventions for resource allocation and point to the need for careful prehospital decision-making in patients with severe TBI.

OBJECTIVE With the revised WHO 2016 classification of brain tumors, there has been increasing interest in imaging biomarkers to predict molecular status and improve the yield of genetic testing for diffuse low-grade gliomas (LGGs). The T2-FLAIR–mismatch sign has been suggested to be a highly specific radiographic marker of isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH ) gene mutation and 1p/19q codeletion status in diffuse LGGs. The presence of T2-FLAIR mismatch indicates a T2-hyperintense lesion that is hypointense on FLAIR with the exception of a hyperintense rim. METHODS In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review of the Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for reports of studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of T2-FLAIR mismatch in predicting the IDH and 1p/19q codeletion status in diffuse LGGs. Results were combined into a 2 × 2 format, and the following diagnostic performance parameters were calculated: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and positive (LR+) and negative (LR−) likelihood ratios. In addition, we utilized Bayes theorem to calculate posttest probabilities as a function of known pretest probabilities from previous genome-wide association studies and the calculated LRs. Calculations were performed for 1) IDH mutation with 1p/19q codeletion ( IDHmut-Codel ), 2) IDH mutation without 1p/19q codeletion ( IDHmut-Noncodel ), 3) IDH mutation overall, and 4) 1p/19q codeletion overall. The QUADAS-2 (revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool was utilized for critical appraisal of included studies. RESULTS A total of 4 studies were included, with inclusion of 2 separate cohorts from a study reporting testing and validation (n = 746). From pooled analysis of all cohorts, the following values were obtained for each molecular profile— IDHmut-Codel : sensitivity 30%, specificity 73%, LR+ 1.1, LR− 1.0; IDHmut-Noncodel : sensitivity 33.7%, specificity 98.5%, LR+ 22.5, LR− 0.7; IDH : sensitivity 32%, specificity 100%, LR+ 32.1, LR− 0.7; 1p/19q codeletion: sensitivity 0%, specificity 54%, LR+ 0.01, LR− 1.9. Bayes theorem was used to calculate the following posttest probabilities after a positive and negative result, respectively— IDHmut-Codel : 32.2% and 29.4%; IDHmut-Noncodel : 95% and 40%; IDH : 99.2% and 73.5%; 1p/19q codeletion: 0.4% and 35.1%. CONCLUSIONS The T2-FLAIR–mismatch sign was an insensitive but highly specific marker of IDH mutation and I DHmut-Noncodel profile, although significant exceptions may exist to this finding. Tumors with a positive sign may still be IDHwt or 1p/19q codeleted. These findings support the utility of T2-FLAIR mismatch as an imaging-based biomarker for positive selection of patients with IDH -mutant gliomas.