Factors associated with stroke or death after carotid endarterectomy in Northern New England

ObjectiveThis study investigated risk factors for stroke or death after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among hospitals of varying type and size participating in a regional quality improvement effort.MethodsWe reviewed 2714 patients undergoing 3092 primary CEAs (excluding combined procedures or redo CEA) at 11 hospitals in Northern New England from January 2003 through December 2007. Hospitals varied in size (25 to 615 beds) and comprised community and teaching hospitals. Fifty surgeons reported results to the database. Trained research personnel prospectively collected >70 demographic and clinical variables for each patient. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to generate odds ratios (ORs) and prediction models for the 30-day postoperative stroke or death rate.ResultsAcross 3092 CEAs, there were 38 minor strokes, 14 major strokes, and eight deaths (5 stroke-related) ≤30 days of the index procedure (30-day stroke or death rate, 1.8%). In multivariate analyses, emergency CEA (OR, 7.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-26.9; P = .004), contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.2; P = .009), preoperative ipsilateral cortical stroke (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.1; P = .02), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4, P = .03), and age >70 (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.3; P = .315) were associated with postoperative stroke or death. Preoperative antiplatelet therapy was protective (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9; P = .02). Risk of stroke or death varied from <1% in patients with no risk factors to nearly 5% with patients with ≥3 risk factors. Our risk prediction model had excellent correlation with observed results (r = 0.96) and reasonable discriminative ability (area under receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.71). Risks varied from <1% in asymptomatic patients with no risk factors to nearly 4% in patients with contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.1; P = .01) and age >70 (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.0-4.9, P = .05). Two hospitals performed significantly better than expected. These differences were not attributable to surgeon or hospital volume.ConclusionSurgeons can “risk-stratify” preoperative patients by considering the variables (emergency procedure, contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion, preoperative ipsilateral cortical stroke, congestive heart failure, and age), reducing risk with antiplatelet agents, and informing patients more precisely about their risk of stroke or death after CEA. Risk prediction models can also be used to compare risk-adjusted outcomes between centers, identify best practices, and hopefully, improve overall results

Development and Pilot Feasibility Study of a Health Information Technology Tool to Calculate Mortality Risk for Patients with Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: The Carotid Risk Assessment Tool (CARAT)

Patients with no history of stroke but with stenosis of the carotid arteries can reduce the risk of future stroke with surgery or stenting. At present, a physicians’ ability to recommend optimal treatments based on an individual’s risk profile requires estimating the likelihood that a patient will have a poor peri-operative outcomes and the likelihood that the patient will survive long enough to gain benefit from the procedure. We describe the development of the CArotid Risk Assessment Tool (CARAT) into a 2-year mortality risk calculator within the electronic medical record, integrating the tool into the clinical workflow, training the clinical team to use the tool, and assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the tool in one clinic setting

Elevated preoperative Galectin-3 is associated with acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery

Abstract Background Previous research suggests that novel biomarkers may be used to identify patients at increased risk of acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between preoperative levels of circulating Galectin-3 (Gal-3) and acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery. Methods Preoperative serum Gal-3 was measured in 1498 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and/or valve surgery as part of the Northern New England Biomarker Study between 2004 and 2007. Preoperative Gal-3 levels were measured using multiplex assays and grouped into terciles. Univariate and multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the predictive ability of Gal-3 terciles and AKI occurrence and severity. Results Before adjustment, patients in the highest tercile of Gal-3 had a 2.86-greater odds of developing postoperative KDIGO Stage 2 or 3 (p < 0.001) and 1.70-greater odds of developing KDIGO Stage 1 (p = < 0.001), compared to the first tercile. After adjustment, patients in the highest tercile had 2.95-greater odds of developing KDIGO Stage 2 or 3 (p < 0.001) and 1.71-increased odds of developing KDIGO Stage 1 (p = 0.001), compared to the first tercile. Compared to the base model, the addition of Gal-3 terciles improved discriminatory power compared to without Gal-3 terciles (test of equality = 0.042). Conclusion Elevated preoperative Gal-3 levels significantly improves predictive ability over existing clinical models for postoperative AKI and may be used to augment risk information for patients at the highest risk of developing AKI and AKI severity after cardiac surgery.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145735/1/12882_2018_Article_1093.pd

Comparison of Evaluations for Heart Transplant Before Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device and Subsequent Receipt of Transplant at Transplant vs Nontransplant Centers

IMPORTANCE: In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services revised its national coverage determination, removing the requirement to obtain review from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center to implant a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for bridge-to-transplant (BTT) intent at an LVAD-only center. The association between center-level transplant availability and access to heart transplant, the gold-standard therapy for advanced heart failure (HF), is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of center transplant availability with LVAD implant strategies and subsequent heart transplant following LVAD implant before the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs multicenter US registry database was conducted from April 1, 2012, to June 30, 2020. The population included patients with HF receiving a primary durable LVAD. EXPOSURES: LVAD center transplant availability (LVAD/transplant vs LVAD only). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were implant strategy as BTT and subsequent transplant by 2 years. Covariates that might affect listing strategy and outcomes were included (eg, patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities) in multivariable models. Parameters for BTT listing were estimated using logistic regression with center-level random effects and for receipt of a transplant using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with death as a competing event. RESULTS: The sample included 22 221 LVAD recipients with a median age of 59.0 (IQR, 50.0-67.0) years, of whom 17 420 (78.4%) were male and 3156 (14.2%) received implants at LVAD-only centers. Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD/transplant center was associated with a 79% increased adjusted odds of BTT LVAD designation (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.35-2.38; P \u3c .001). The 2-year transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% at LVAD/transplant centers and 11.9% at LVAD-only centers. There was an associated 33% increased rate of transplant at LVAD/transplant centers compared with LVAD-only centers (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.17-1.51) with a similar hazard for death at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD-transplant center was associated with increased odds of BTT intent at implant and subsequent transplant receipt for patients at 2 years. The findings of this study suggest that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change may have the unintended consequence of further increasing inequities in access to transplant among patients at LVAD-only centers

Developing and Executing Quality Improvement Projects (concept, methods, and evaluation)

Continuous quality improvement, quality assurance, cycles of change—these words of often used to express the process of using data to inform and improve clinical care. Although many of us have been exposed to theories and practice of experimental work (e.g., randomized trial), few of us have been similarly exposed to the science underlying quality improvement. Through the lens of a single-center quality improvement study, this article exposes the reader to methodology for conducting such studies. The reader will gain an understanding of these methods required to embark on such a study

A Primer on Randomized Controlled Trials

Randomized Clinical Trials are held as the gold standard for quantifying the effect of an intervention across two or more groups. In such a trial an intervention is randomly allocated to one of two groups. The benefit of such a trial lies in its ability to establish nearly comparable groups of subjects in all manner except for the effect of the intervention. As such, the effect of a given intervention may be attributed solely to the intervention and not to any other extraneous factor. In the following editorial, we will discuss several issues that are important for understanding how to conduct and interpret randomized trials: choosing the study population, choosing the comparison group, choosing your outcome, study design, data analysis, and issues of inference. This editorial is intended to make the reader an educated consumer of such trial designs