Citations

Background Expansion of the endovascular and surgical workforce in the USA might lead to carotid revascularization procedures being carried out at low volume centers. Objective To evaluate trends in the treatment of carotid stenosis at high volume centers in the USA and compare outcomes by hospital volume. Methods Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we evaluated trends in the proportion of carotid revascularization procedures performed at high volume centers in the USA from 2005 to 2011. High volume was defined as combined endarterectomy/stenting volume ≥130 patients/year, carotid endarterectomy volume ≥117 cases/year and carotid stenting volume ≥38 cases/year. In-hospital mortality, discharge to a long-term facility, intracranial hemorrhage, and postoperative stroke rates were compared between high and low volume centers. Results A total of 181 972 patients were included in this study. Overall, 63 442 patients (34.9%) were treated at high volume centers. The proportion of patients treated at high volume carotid revascularization centers decreased from 38.3% in 2005–2006 to 30.2% in 2010–2011. The proportion of patients treated at high volume centers decreased from 35.7% to 30.0% for carotid endarterectomy (p<0.0001) and 45.2% to 35.1% for carotid stenting. Patients treated at low volume centers had significantly higher rates of discharge to a long-term facility than high volume center patients (6.3% vs 5.0%, p<0.0001). The same was true for endarterectomy patients (6.0% vs 4.7%, p<0.0001) and stenting patients (8.3% vs 6.5%, p<0.0001). Conclusions A trend toward a lower proportion of patients with carotid stenosis being treated in high volume centers from 2005 to 2011 is concerning as these high volume centers had lower complication rates.

The acute ischemic strokes amenable to intraarterial therapy probably number no more than 20,000 per year in the United States. The future demand for intraarterial reperfusion techniques may change, but the fraction of patients who require intraarterial thrombolysis is currently rather low, and the number of neurointerventionists is adequate. Each hospital caring for patients with acute stroke will need to determine its own demand for intraarterial therapy and employ an adequate supply of qualified neurointerventionists available to meet demand. Comprehensive stroke centers are now being designated and hopefully will foster a rational, regionalized approach to the delivery of endovascular therapies for stroke.

Background and Purpose— Reversal of anticoagulation with protamine might predispose to a higher risk of stroke in patients with carotid stenting. We evaluated a national, multihospital patient database to examine the risk of stroke in patients with carotid stenting receiving protamine compared with those who did not. Methods— The Premier Perspective database was used to identify patients who were electively hospitalized for carotid stenting from 2006 through 2011. The incidence of in-hospital mortality and morbidity was compared between patients who did and did not receive protamine after propensity score adjustment via 1:1 matching to reduce selection bias. Results— Of 6664 patients with carotid stenting treated at 193 hospitals, 556 (8%) received protamine on the day of the procedure. After matching by propensity score, patients who received protamine had a similar likelihood of stroke or transient ischemic attack ( P =0.77), in-hospital mortality ( P =0.12), discharge to long-term care ( P =0.15), and access site complications ( P =0.90) as compared with patients who did not receive protamine. Conclusions— Protamine administration is not associated with additional risk of adverse events after carotid stenting.

Background and purpose A recent expansion of the neurointerventional workforce in the USA could lead to a trend toward cerebral aneurysms being increasingly treated at low volume centers. Such a trend could have a negative impact on patient care as higher volume centers are known to have better outcomes. Methods Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we evaluated trends in aneurysm treatment in the USA from 2001 to 2010. Annual volumes of both ruptured and unruptured aneurysms were counted, as well as annual percentages of cases treated at high volume centers (≥50 aneurysms/year clipped or coiled). Results The number of ruptured aneurysms treated per year has fluctuated between 9000 and 12 000 from 2003 to 2010. In 2001–2002, 27.4% of intracranial aneurysm patients were treated with clipping or coiling at high volume centers, with a peak of 70.1% in 2007–2008. This proportion dropped to 61.8% in 2009–2010. The proportion of patients clipped at high volume centers was 23.3% in 2001–2002 and peaked at 65.0% in 2007–2008. In 2009–2010, the proportion dropped to 58.6%. For coiling patients, 46.4% were treated at high volume centers in 2001–2002, with a peak of 70.1% in 2007–2008, and a drop to 61.8% in 2009–2010. Conclusion A trend toward less cerebral aneurysms being treated in high volume centers in 2009 and 2010 is worrisome because high volume centers are known to tend to have better outcomes. This trend is likely due to recent expansion of the neurointerventional workforce.

Background and Purpose— Acute intraprocedural thrombus formation complicating endovascular cerebral aneurysm treatment is often treated with intra-arterial or intravenous administration of thrombolytic agents or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GpIIb/IIIa) inhibitors. We sought to evaluate the morbidity and mortality associated with such treatments using a large multihospital database. Methods— Using the Premier Perspective Database, we examined outcomes for patients receiving endovascular coiling for ruptured and unruptured aneurysms requiring rescue therapy, defined as treatment with GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors and fibrinolytic therapy. We compared discharge status, length of stay, and complication rates across 3 groups: (1) patients receiving GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors only, (2) patients receiving fibrinolytic therapy only, and (3) patients receiving both GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors and fibrinolytics. Student t test was used to compare continuous variables, and Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables. Results— Seven-percent (254/3627) of patients treated for unruptured aneurysms received rescue therapy. When compared with patients receiving GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors alone, patients receiving only fibrinolytics had significantly higher rates of discharge to institutions other than home (37.5% [9/24] versus 7.4% [15/201]; P <0.0001). Eight-percent of patients (338/4204) treated for ruptured aneurysms received rescue therapy. When compared with patients receiving GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors alone, patients receiving only fibrinolytics had significantly higher rates of mortality (26.0% [18/69] versus 14.5% [35/241]; P =0.02) and discharge to institutions other than home (59.4% [41/69] versus 36.5% [88/241]; P <0.0001). Conclusions— Pharmacological rescue therapy occurred in 7% to 8% of endovascular coiling patients with unruptured and ruptured intracranial aneurysms. Rescue therapy with thrombolytic agents resulted in significantly more morbidity and mortality than rescue therapy with GpIIb/IIIa inhibitors.

Background and Purpose— Endovascular therapy has increasingly become the most common treatment for unruptured cerebral aneurysms in the United States. We evaluated a national, multi-hospital database to examine recent utilization trends and compare periprocedural outcomes between clipping and coiling treatments of unruptured aneurysms. Methods— The Premier Perspective database was used to identify patients hospitalized between 2006 to 2011 for unruptured cerebral aneurysm who underwent clipping or coiling therapy. A logistic propensity score was generated for each patient using relevant patient, procedure, and hospital variables, representing the probability of receiving clipping. Covariate balance was assessed using conditional logistic regression. Following propensity score adjustment using 1:1 matching methods, the risk of in-hospital mortality and morbidity was compared between clipping and coiling cohorts. Results— A total of 4899 unruptured aneurysm patients (1388 clipping, 3551 coiling) treated at 120 hospitals were identified. Following propensity score adjustment, clipping patients had a similar likelihood of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49–4.44; P =0.47) but a significantly higher likelihood of unfavorable outcomes, including discharge to long-term care (OR, 4.78; 95% CI, 3.51–6.58; P <0.0001), ischemic complications (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 2.39–4.99; P <0.0001), hemorrhagic complications (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.33–3.57; P <0.0001), postoperative neurological complications (OR, 3.39; 95% CI, 2.25–5.22; P <0.0001), and ventriculostomy (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.01–4.61; P =0.0320) compared with coiling patients. Conclusions— Among patients treated for unruptured intracranial aneurysms in a large sample of hospitals in the United States, clipping was associated with similar mortality risk but significantly higher periprocedural morbidity risk compared with coiling.