Citations

Background and Purpose— We investigated whether procedural stroke or death risk of carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is different in patients with and without history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and whether the treatment-specific impact of age differs. Methods— We combined individual patient data of 4754 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis from 4 randomized trials (EVA-3S [Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in Patients With Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis], SPACE [Stent-Protected Angioplasty Versus Carotid Endarterectomy], ICSS [International Carotid Stenting Study], and CREST [Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial]). Procedural risk was defined as any stroke or death ≤30 days after treatment. We compared procedural risk between both treatments with Cox regression analysis, stratified by history of CHD and age (<70, 70–74, ≥75 years). History of CHD included myocardial infarction, angina, or coronary revascularization. Results— One thousand two hundred ninety-three (28%) patients had history of CHD. Procedural stroke or death risk was higher in patients with history of CHD. Procedural risk in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA was consistent in patients with history of CHD (8.3% versus 4.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.96; 95% CI, 0.67–5.73) and in those without (6.9% versus 3.6%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.40–2.65; P interaction =0.89). In patients with history of CHD, procedural risk was significantly higher after CAS compared with CEA in patients aged ≥75 (CAS-to-CEA HR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.32–5.85), but not in patients aged <70 (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.79–3.71) and 70 to 74 years (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45–2.65). In contrast, in patients without history of CHD, procedural risk after CAS was higher in patients aged 70 to 74 (HR, 3.62; 95% CI, 1.80–7.29) and ≥75 years (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.52–4.59), but equal in patients aged <70 years (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.63–1.73; 3-way P interaction =0.09). Conclusions— History of CHD does not modify procedural stroke or death risk of CAS compared with CEA. CAS might be as safe as CEA in patients with history of CHD aged <75 years, whereas for patients without history of CHD, risk after CAS compared with CEA was only equal in those aged <70 years.

Background: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) previously reported increased mortality in patients who sustained a periprocedural stroke or cardiac event (myocardial infarction [MI] or biomarker only) in follow-up to 4 years. We now extend these observations to 10 years. Methods and Results: CREST is a randomized controlled trial designed to compare the outcomes of carotid stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between mortality and periprocedural stroke, MI, or biomarker-only events. For 10-year follow-up, patients with periprocedural stroke were at 1.74× the risk of death compared with those without stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=1.74; 95% CI, 1.21–2.50; P <0.003). This increased risk was driven by increased early (between 0 and 90 days) mortality (adjusted HR=14.41; 95% CI, 5.33–38.94; P <0.0001), with no significant increase in late (between 91 days and 10 years) mortality (adjusted HR=1.40; 95% CI, 0.93–2.10; P =0.11). Patients with a protocol MI were at 3.61× increased risk of death compared with those without MI (adjusted HR=3.61; 95% CI, 2.28–5.73; P <0.0001), with an increased hazard both early (adjusted HR=8.20; 95% CI, 1.86–36.2; P =0.006) and late (adjusted HR=3.40; 95% CI, 2.09–5.53; P <0.0001). Patients with a biomarker-only event were at 2.04× increased risk overall (adjusted HR=2.04; 95% CI, 1.09–3.84; P =0.03) than those without MI, with an increased early hazard (adjusted HR=8.44; 95% CI, 1.09–65.5; P =0.04) and a suggestive but nonsignificant association toward higher 91-day to 10-year risk (1.88; 95% CI, 0.97–3.64; P =0.062) contributing to the increased risk. Conclusions: In the CREST trial, patients with periprocedural events demonstrate a substantial increase in future mortality to 10 years. For stroke, this risk is largely confined to an early time frame while periprocedural MI or biomarker-only events confer a continuous increased mortality for 10 years. Strategies to reduce periprocedural events and to optimize the evaluation and management of patients with cardiac events should be considered in efforts to reduce not only early but also long-term mortality. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Objective To summarise the available information on physician workforce modelling, to develop a rheumatology workforce prediction risk of bias tool and to apply it to existing studies in rheumatology. Methods A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed in key electronic databases (1946–2017) comprising an update of an SLR in rheumatology and a hierarchical SLR in other medical fields. Data on the type of workforce prediction models and the factors considered in the models were extracted. Key general as well as specific need/demand and supply factors for workforce calculation in rheumatology were identified. The workforce prediction risk of bias tool was developed and applied to existing workforce studies in rheumatology. Results In total, 14 studies in rheumatology and 10 studies in other medical fields were included. Studies used a variety of prediction models based on a heterogeneous set of need/demand and/or supply factors. Only two studies attempted empirical validation of the prediction quality of the model. Based on evidence and consensus, the newly developed risk of bias tool includes 21 factors (general, need/demand and supply). The majority of studies revealed high or moderate risk of bias for most of the factors. Conclusions The existing evidence on workforce prediction in rheumatology is scarce, heterogeneous and at moderate or high risk of bias. The new risk of bias tool should enable future evaluation of workforce prediction studies. This review informs the European League Against Rheumatism points to consider for the conduction of workforce requirement studies in rheumatology.

Objective Current methods used for forecasting workforce requirements in rheumatology are disparate, as are the parameters incorporated into workforce projection studies. The objective of these European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR points to consider (PTC) is to guide future workforce studies in adult rheumatology in order to produce valid and reliable manpower estimates. Methods The EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures were followed. A multidisciplinary task force with experts including patients with rheumatic diseases from 11 EULAR countries and the USA was assembled. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to retrieve workforce models in rheumatology and other medical fields. PTC were based on expert opinion informed by the SLR, followed by group discussions with consensus obtained through informal voting. The level of agreement with the PTC was voted anonymously. Results A total of 10 PTC were formulated. The task force recommends models integrating supply (=workforce available in rheumatology), demand (=health services requested by the population) and need (=health services that are considered appropriate to serve the population). In general, projections of workforce requirements should consider all factors relevant for current and future workload in rheumatology inside and outside of direct patient care. Forecasts of workforce supply should consider demography and attrition of rheumatologists, as well as the effects of new developments in healthcare. Predictions of future need/demand should take demographic, sociocultural and epidemiological development of the population into account. Conclusion These EULAR-endorsed PTC will provide guidance on the methodology and the parameters to be applied in future national and international workforce requirement studies in rheumatology.

Purpose: To analyze and provide an overview of the incidence, management, and prevention of conjunctival erosion in Argus II clinical trial subjects and postapproval patients. Methods: This retrospective analysis followed the results of 274 patients treated with the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis System between June 2007 and November 2017, including 30 subjects from the US and European clinical trials, and 244 patients in the postapproval phase. Results were gathered for incidence of a serious adverse event, incidence of conjunctival erosion, occurrence sites, rates of erosion, and erosion timing. Results: Overall, 60% of subjects in the clinical trial subjects versus 83% of patients in the postapproval phase did not experience device- or surgery-related serious adverse events. In the postapproval phase, conjunctival erosion had an incidence rate of 6.2% over 5 years and 11 months. In 55% of conjunctival erosion cases, erosion occurred in the inferotemporal quadrant, 25% in the superotemporal quadrant, and 20% in both. Sixty percent of the erosion events occurred in the first 15 months after implantation, and 85% within the first 2.5 years. Conclusion: Reducing occurrence of conjunctival erosion in patients with the Argus II Retinal Prosthesis requires identification and minimization of risk factors before and during implantation. Implementing inverted sutures at the implant tabs, use of graft material at these locations as well as Mersilene rather than nylon sutures, and accurate Tenon's and conjunctiva closure are recommended for consideration in all patients.