Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to analyze the association between center quality certifications and patients’ characteristics, clinical management, and outcomes after carotid revascularization. Methods: This study is a pre-planned sub-study of the ISAR-IQ project, which analyzes data from the Bavarian subset of the nationwide German statutory quality assurance carotid database. Hospitals were classified as to whether a certified vascular center (cVC) or a certified stroke unit (cSU) was present on-site or not. The primary outcome event was any stroke or death until discharge from the hospital. Results: In total, 31,793 cases were included between 2012 and 2018. The primary outcome rate in asymptomatic patients treated by CEA ranged from 0.7% to 1.5%, with the highest rate in hospitals with cVC but without cSU. The multivariable regression analysis revealed a significantly lower primary outcome rate in centers with cSU in asymptomatic patients (aOR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56–0.86; p < 0.001). In symptomatic patients needing emergency treatment, the on-site availability of a cSU was associated with a significantly lower primary outcome rate (aOR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40–0.80; p < 0.001), whereas the presence of a cVC was associated with higher risk (aOR 3.07; 95% CI 1.65–5.72). Conclusions: This study provides evidence of statistically significant better results in some sub-cohorts in certified centers. In centers with cSU, the risk of any stroke or death was significantly lower in asymptomatic patients receiving CEA or symptomatic patients treated by emergency CEA.
Keywords: carotid stenosis, carotid endarterectomy, carotid stenting, quality assurance, quality certification
1. Introduction
According to international carotid guidelines, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is considered the treatment of choice for patients with 60–99% asymptomatic or 50–99% symptomatic carotid artery stenosis [1,2,3,4]. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered a less invasive treatment option, especially if the patient is at high risk for surgery [5,6]. In addition, factors such as the degree of stenosis, preceding radiation therapy, or symptomatic status are considered when choosing a treatment procedure between CEA and CAS [4,7]. Previous large studies comparing the outcomes of CAS and CEA demonstrated varying results, with the majority showing a higher risk of periprocedural stroke in CAS compared to CEA, while others found no major difference with regard to the long-term outcomes [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Data suggesting a higher risk of periprocedural outcomes in symptomatic patients, even with lower grades of stenosis, focus attention on the importance of plaque morphology and individual patient characteristics for preoperative risk assessment [10]. Regarding hospital-level characteristics, an inverse association between annual hospital volume and the risk of in-hospital stroke after carotid revascularization has already been demonstrated [20,21,22]. Additionally, there is also evidence showing high-volume vascular surgeons achieving significantly lower perioperative stroke or death rates after CEA [23]. Explanations for the connection between high volume and better outcomes often refer to better experience or ‘routine’ on the part of medical staff as well as optimized structures and processes.
The aim of quality certifications, according to the German Society for Vascular Surgery (DGG), is to improve patient care quality measures by optimizing structural quality and process quality, e.g., minimum requirements for staff qualification, multidisciplinary team settings, or quality assurance measures within the framework of an economically oriented healthcare system. Criteria for a cVC include, among others, on-site availability of units for vascular surgery, radiology, and angiology, as well as a minimum annual caseload of more than 30 CEA [24]. Patient treatment should be optimized by close cooperation with departments of, e.g., neurology and cardiology and regular conduction of mortality and morbidity conferences. The German Stroke Society (DSG) defines similar strict criteria for cSU, including a 24 h availability of personnel performing computed tomography and recanalizing interventions [25]. So far, the impact of center quality certifications, e.g., availability of stroke units (cSU) or certified vascular centers (cVC), on the management and outcome after CEA or CAS has not been investigated.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the association between center quality certification and characteristics of patients, clinical management, and outcomes after carotid revascularization by CEA or CAS.
2. Methods
The present analysis is a pre-planned sub-study of the ISAR-IQ project (Integration and Spatial Analysis of Regional, Site-Specific, and Patient-Level Factors for Improving Quality of Treatment for Carotid Artery Stenosis). The methods of the ISAR-IQ project have already been published elsewhere [26,27] and are summarized here.
2.1. Data Source
The study is based on the Bavarian subset of the German nationwide statutory quality assurance database operated by the Bavarian Institute for Quality Assurance (former: Bayerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Qualitätssicherung in der stationären Versorgung, BAQ) [28]. Data from quality assurance measures according to § 136 SGB V of the Federal Joint Committee were used. Because of legal obligations [29], the data collection covers all CEA operations and CAS procedures. All hospitals in Germany have to report the details of carotid procedures in this database by law. The data and results, therefore, did not have to be collected first for this study but were available in the form of a completed database that was used for secondary data analysis. The legal basis for the scientific use of quality assurance data is § 137a paragraph 10 SGB V. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty, Technical University of Munich (Reference Number 107/20S). The analysis was conducted according to Good Practice of Secondary Data Analysis guidelines [30]. As this is an observational study using routinely collected health data, RECORD reporting guidelines were applied [31]. All data were saved on BAQ servers according to the respective data protection regulations. Data access was only permitted using controlled data processing (CDP). Essential methods regarding CDP have been established in other studies and reported [26,27,32,33,34,35]. The study protocol was submitted to the BAQ and the G-BA during the application procedure but was not published separately. Further details of the legal basis have already been published [32].
2.2. Case Selection
Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients who underwent elective CEA and CAS between January 2012 and December 2018 were included in the analysis (for patients’ flowcharts, see Supplemental Figure S1). The indication groups were defined as follows: group A, asymptomatic cases; group B, symptomatic cases electively treated for amaurosis fugax, transitory ischemic attack, stroke, or other symptoms; group C1, patients suffering crescendo-TIA or stroke-in-evolution; group C2, CEA or CAS in the context of simultaneous procedures. Simultaneous procedures considered were aorto-coronary bypasses, peripheral arterial reconstructions, aortic reconstructions, and intracranial PTA/stenting.; group C3, CEA, or CAS for other indications (e.g., carotid aneurysm, symptomatic coiling, redo carotid procedures, tandem stenosis). Patients not fitting these criteria were excluded from the analysis.
2.3. Study Variables
The main variable of this study was center quality certification, coded in two variables (cVC certified by the German Vascular Society): yes or no, and availability of a certified stroke unit (cSU certified by the German Stroke Society): yes or no. This resulted in four hospital groups for cVC/cSU: yes/yes, yes/no, no/yes, and no/no.
2.4. Study Outcomes
The primary outcome event (POE) was defined as any stroke or death until discharge from the hospital. Secondary outcomes were defined as major stroke or death, any stroke, all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), all until hospital discharge. All outcomes were subdivided into the aforementioned indication groups (A, B, C1–3). In the report form for the quality assurance database, the hospitals have to specify the preoperative symptom status and can provide this information by selecting the following symptoms: amaurosis fugax, transitory ischemic attack, stroke (including severity by use of the modified Rankin Scale) or “other neurological features”. Regarding the outcome, the occurrence of a new perioperative neurological event (including severity by use of the modified Rankin Scale) must be reported in the database.
2.5. Statistical Analyses
Categorical variables were shown as absolute numbers and percentages. If not stated otherwise, continuous variables were presented as median with first (Q1) and third (Q3) quartiles. To account for confounding, the variables age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) stage, type of index event in symptomatic patients (i.e., amaurosis fugax, TIA, minor stroke, major stroke), ipsilateral and contralateral degree of stenosis, pre- and post-procedural assessment by a neurologist, and hospital volume were entered as fixed-effect factors. Model specification and variable selection were conducted a priori according to a prespecified analysis plan based on literature research and expert knowledge.
R version 3.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria [36]) was used for data processing and statistical analysis, with extension packages tidyverse and epitools to calculate cross-classified tables, chi-square tests, and multivariable regression analyses. Variable codes were extracted from the codebooks provided by the BAQ and harmonized over the time period from 2012 to 2018. For all tests, a two-tailed level of significance of α = 5% was used.
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Characteristics
In total, 31,793 cases were included. The majority of patients (23,199, 73%, Table 1) were treated in a non-certified vascular center, with 35% being treated in a center with cSU. In total, 27% of patients were treated in a cVC with 16% of these patients being treated in a center with an on-site cSU. The majority of patients were male (68%), and the median age was 72 years (Q1/3: 65–78). Most patients were classified ASA III (62%). In hospitals with both certified centers, most patients (91%) presented with severe carotid stenosis (70–99%, NASCET). About two-thirds of the cases were asymptomatic, with the lowest share in centers with cSU but without cVC (49%). Across all centers, high availability of vascular surgeons was observed, with the lowest being in hospitals without cVC (94–96%, Table 2). Higher variability could be found in the availability of neurologists, with the highest being in cVC with cSU (97%) and the lowest in centers without either (43%). Neuroradiologists showed the highest availability in cVC with a small difference in centers with cSU (yes: 76%, no: 77%). In centers without any certification, neuroradiologists were available in 25% of centers.
Table 1.
Characteristics of patients treated with CEA or CAS by hospital-level quality structures.
| Certified Stroke-Unit | Certified Vascular Centre | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||
| N (%) | 4969 | (16) | 3625 | (11) | 11,257 | (35) | 11,942 | (38) |
| Age (years, median, Q1–Q3) | 72 | (65–77) | 72 | (65–78) | 72 | (65–78) | 73 | (66–78) |
| Sex, Male | 3434 | (69) | 2443 | (67) | 7652 | (68) | 8120 | (68) |
| Right carotid artery treated | 2543 | (51) | 1795 | (50) | 5622 | (50) | 6115 | (51) |
| ASA stage | ||||||||
| Stage I + II | 1739 | (35) | 1224 | (34) | 3952 | (35) | 3734 | (31) |
| Stage III | 2937 | (59) | 2211 | (61) | 6675 | (59) | 7777 | (65) |
| Stage IV + V | 275 | (5.5) | 135 | (3.7) | 496 | (4.4) | 344 | (2.9) |
| Ipsilateral degree of stenosis | ||||||||
| Mild (<50%, NASCET) | 113 | (2.3) | 51 | (1.4) | 232 | (2.1) | 217 | (1.8) |
| Moderate (50–69%, NASCET) | 280 | (5.6) | 167 | (4.6) | 656 | (5.8) | 503 | (4.2) |
| Severe (70–99%, NASCET) | 4499 | (91) | 3333 | (92) | 10,041 | (89) | 11,094 | (93) |
| Occlusion (100%) | 77 | (1.5) | 74 | (2.0) | 328 | (2.9) | 128 | (1.1) |
| Contralateral degree of stenosis | ||||||||
| Mild (<50%, NASCET) | 3385 | (68) | 2350 | (65) | 7977 | (71) | 8012 | (67) |
| Moderate (50–69%, NASCET) | 683 | (14) | 645 | (18) | 1452 | (13) | 1860 | (16) |
| Severe (70–99%, NASCET) | 620 | (12) | 415 | (11) | 1194 | (11) | 1429 | (12) |
| Occlusion (100%) | 281 | (5.7) | 215 | (5.9) | 634 | (5.6) | 641 | (5.4) |
| Indication Group | ||||||||
| - Group A (asymptomatic) | 2812 | (57) | 2033 | (56) | 5478 | (49) | 7115 | (60) |
| - Group B (symptomatic, elective) | 1681 | (34) | 1068 | (29) | 4271 | (38) | 3712 | (31) |
| Amaurosis fugax | 258 | (5.2) | 214 | (5.9) | 576 | (5.1) | 579 | (4.8) |
| Transitory ischemic attack (TIA) | 589 | (12) | 429 | (12) | 1259 | (11) | 1404 | (12) |
| Stroke (Rankin 0–5) | 765 | (15) | 345 | (9.5) | 2245 | (20) | 1524 | (13) |
| Other symptoms | 69 | (1.4) | 80 | (2.2) | 191 | (1.7) | 205 | (1.7) |
| - Group C (others) | 476 | (9.6) | 524 | (14) | 1508 | (13) | 1115 | (9.3) |
| Crescendo-TIA/Stroke-in-evolution | 135 | (2.7) | 348 | (9.6) | 664 | (5.9) | 495 | (4.1) |
| Simultaneous procedures # | 139 | (2.8) | 66 | (1.8) | 382 | (3.4) | 197 | (1.6) |
| Others ° | 202 | (4.1) | 110 | (3.0) | 462 | (4.1) | 423 | (3.5) |
Q1 = first quartile, Q3 = third quartile, ASA = American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification system (n = 294 data is missing in total). # = simultaneous performed coronary bypass operation, peripheral arterial reconstruction, aortic procedure, intracranial stenting, and other simultaneous performed procedures. ° = carotid aneurysm, symptomatic coiling, exulcerated plaque morphology, ipsilateral carotid occlusion, redo carotid procedures, tandem stenosis. NASCET = North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial degree of stenosis criteria [37].
Table 2.
Characteristics of patients regarding hospital characteristics.
| Certified Stroke-Unit | Certified Vascular Centre | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||
| Specialists available at center | ||||||||
| Vascular surgeon | 4857 | (98) | 3615 | (100) | 10,557 | (94) | 11,427 | (96) |
| Neurologist | 4826 | (97) | 2882 | (80) | 10823 | (96) | 5109 | (43) |
| Heart surgery | 1843 | (37) | 3132 | (86) | 3811 | (34) | 4793 | (40) |
| Internal medicine/Angiology | 2575 | (52) | 2725 | (75) | 4656 | (41) | 5971 | (50) |
| Internal medicine/Cardiology | 4969 | (100) | 3489 | (96) | 10,866 | (97) | 10,524 | (88) |
| Neurosurgery | 4574 | (92) | 3058 | (84) | 8361 | (74) | 4799 | (40) |
| Neuroradiology | 3753 | (76) | 2794 | (77) | 5494 | (49) | 2932 | (25) |
| Certified Quality management system | ||||||||
| DIN ISO EN 9001 | 1136 | (23) | 518 | (14) | 1441 | (13) | 2229 | (19) |
| KTQ | 159 | (3.2) | 144 | (4.0) | 1277 | (11) | 552 | (4.6) |
| proCum Cert | 0 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 526 | (4.4) |
| none of these | 3674 | (74) | 2963 | (82) | 8539 | (76) | 8635 | (72) |
| Centre annual caseload (median; Q1–Q3) | ||||||||
| - All CEA | 94 | (76–120) | 54 | (37–98) | 34 | (10–65) | 14 | (3–35) |
| CEA in Group A | 59 | (34–74) | 25 | (15–58) | 16 | (2–32) | 6.0 | (1–21) |
| CEA in Group B | 30 | (26–45) | 27 | (14–38) | 14 | (3–26) | 4.0 | (1–12) |
| CEA in Group C | 1 | (0–4) | 1 | (0–3) | 0 | (0–1) | 0 | (0–1) |
| - All CAS | 11 | (3–29) | 3 | (1–20) | 4 | (0–19) | 0 | (0–4) |
| CAS in Group A | 5.5 | (2–11) | 2.0 | (0–4) | 1.0 | (0–5) | 0.0 | (0–2) |
| CAS in Group B | 3.0 | (0–6) | 0.0 | (0–2) | 1.0 | (0–6) | 0.0 | (0–1) |
| CAS in Group C | 0 | (0–2) | 0 | (0–1) | 0 | (0–1) | 0 | (0–0) |
| Regional settlement structure | ||||||||
| Independent city | 2986 | (60) | 2836 | (78) | 5290 | (47) | 3849 | (32) |
| Urban district | 159 | (3.2) | 144 | (4.0) | 867 | (7.7) | 1251 | (10) |
| Rural district | 1170 | (24) | 463 | (13) | 1779 | (16) | 2557 | (21) |
| Sparsely populated region | 654 | (13) | 182 | (5.0) | 3321 | (30) | 4285 | (36) |
CEA = carotid endarterectomy, CAS = carotid artery stenting. Q1 = first quartile, Q3 = third quartile.
Analysis of the center’s annual caseload showed a total of 94 CEA performed in centers with cSU and cVC, with 14 CEA being performed in centers without cSU and cVC. Regarding urban-rural differences, hospitals with double certification were predominately situated in large independent cities (60%, Table 2).
3.2. Diagnostic Procedures, Management, and Treatment
In all indication groups, a higher proportion of patients was treated with CEA compared to CAS, Table 3. The proportion of patients with pre- and post-procedural neurological assessments was higher in hospitals with cSU (68% and 54%) compared to hospitals without cSU (40% and 31%). In all hospitals, the majority of patients received perioperative antiplatelet medication with Aspirin, with the highest proportion in cVC with cSU (89%). In the case of CEA, local anesthesia was more frequently used in cSU (26–30%). The rate of combined/converted anesthesia was lowest in hospitals with a cVC (0.4–1.3%).
Table 3.
Diagnostic procedures, management, and treatment of patients.
| Certified Stroke-Unit | Certified Vascular Centre | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||
| Time interval * | ||||||||
| 0–2 days | 243 | (14) | 186 | (17) | 643 | (15) | 376 | (10) |
| 3–7 days | 627 | (37) | 437 | (41) | 1662 | (39) | 1398 | (38) |
| 8–14 days | 282 | (17) | 149 | (14) | 652 | (15) | 722 | (19) |
| 15–180 days | 460 | (27) | 228 | (21) | 889 | (21) | 1104 | (30) |
| Neurological assessment | ||||||||
| Pre-procedural | 3821 | (77) | 1941 | (54) | 8012 | (71) | 6903 | (58) |
| Post-procedural | 4151 | (84) | 1162 | (32) | 6918 | (61) | 5474 | (46) |
| Pre- and post-procedural | 3399 | (68) | 1107 | (31) | 6119 | (54) | 4732 | (40) |
| Perioperative antiplatelet medication | ||||||||
| Aspirin monotherapy | 3601 | (72) | 3225 | (89) | 8211 | (73) | 9431 | (79) |
| Clopidogrel mono | 128 | (2.6) | 44 | (1.2) | 244 | (2.2) | 329 | (2.8) |
| Other monotherapy | 9 | (0.2) | 13 | (0.4) | 76 | (0.7) | 31 | (0.3) |
| Dual antiplatelet medication | 715 | (14) | 250 | (6.9) | 1680 | (15) | 1524 | (13) |
| None | 516 | (10) | 93 | (2.6) | 1046 | (9.3) | 627 | (5.3) |
| Treatment by indication group | ||||||||
| - Group A (asymptomatic) | ||||||||
| CEA | 2427 | (86) | 1837 | (90) | 4592 | (84) | 6086 | (86) |
| CAS | 385 | (14) | 196 | (10) | 886 | (16) | 1029 | (14) |
| - Group B (symptomatic, elective) | ||||||||
| CEA | 1505 | (90) | 983 | (92) | 3367 | (79) | 3333 | (90) |
| CAS | 176 | (10) | 85 | (8.0) | 904 | (21) | 379 | (10) |
| - Group C (others) | ||||||||
| CEA | 296 | (62) | 413 | (79) | 723 | (48) | 932 | (84) |
| CAS | 180 | (38) | 111 | (21) | 785 | (52) | 183 | (16) |
| Type of anesthesia ° | ||||||||
| Local anesthesia | 796 | (26) | 292 | (15) | 1710 | (30) | 1950 | (23) |
| General anesthesia | 2279 | (73) | 1608 | (84) | 3903 | (68) | 6218 | (73) |
| Combined anesthesia | 41 | (1.3) | 8 | (0.4) | 119 | (2.1) | 357 | (4.2) |
| Intraprocedural monitoring § | ||||||||
| Electroencephalography | 46 | (2.3) | 135 | (28) | 150 | (3.5) | 207 | (4.0) |
| Transcranial Cerebral Oximetry | 631 | (31) | 53 | (11) | 538 | (13) | 824 | (16) |
| Somato-sensory evoked potentials | 831 | (41) | 118 | (24) | 2026 | (48) | 2122 | (41) |
| Other methods | 497 | (25) | 184 | (38) | 1518 | (36) | 2063 | (40) |
* = Time interval between the index event and time of treatment (only for Group B). ° = only CEA from 2012–2016. § = if documented.
3.3. Study Outcomes
The primary outcome rate in asymptomatic patients treated by CEA ranged from 0.7% to 1.5%, with the highest rate in hospitals with cVC but without cSU (Table 4). Regarding symptomatic patients (non-emergency) treated by CEA, the primary outcome risk ranged from 1.8% to 2.7%. See Table 4 for details regarding primary outcome rates and Supplemental Tables S1 and S2 for secondary outcomes.
Table 4.
Primary outcomes in patients treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid stenting (CAS).
| Certified Stroke-Unit | Certified Vascular Centre | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||||
| Yes | No | Yes | No | |||||
| Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) | ||||||||
| Any stroke or death | ||||||||
| - Group A: asymptomatic | 18/2427 | (0.7) | 27/1837 | (1.5) | 47/4592 | (1.0) | 74/6086 | (1.2) |
| - Group B: symptomatic, elective | 27/1505 | (1.8) | 24/983 | (2.4) | 92/3367 | (2.7) | 76/3333 | (2.3) |
| - Group C1: symptomatic, emergency | 5/64 | (7.8) | 27/299 | (9.0) | 16/299 | (5.4) | 40/430 | (9.3) |
| - Group C2: Simultaneous procedures | 6/72 | (8.3) | 5/35 | (14) | 14/159 | (8.8) | 11/124 | (8.9) |
| - Group C3: Others | 12/160 | (7.5) | 8/79 | (10) | 16/265 | (6.0) | 24/378 | (6.3) |
| Carotid artery stenting (CAS) | ||||||||
| Any stroke or death | ||||||||
| - Group A: asymptomatic | 3/385 | (0.8) | 1/196 | (0.5) | 33/886 | (3.7) | 22/1029 | (2.1) |
| - Group B: symptomatic, elective | 6/176 | (3.4) | 4/85 | (4.7) | 32/904 | (3.5) | 17/379 | (4.5) |
| - Group C1: symptomatic, emergency | 9/71 | (13) | 8/49 | (16) | 37/365 | (10) | 6/65 | (9.2) |
| - Group C2: Simultaneous procedures | 4/67 | (6.0) | 6/31 | (19) | 27/223 | (12) | 6/73 | (8.2) |
| - Group C3: Others | 8/42 | (19) | 2/31 | (6.5) | 21/197 | (11) | 3/45 | (6.7) |
Q1/3 = first/third quartile.
In the univariate analysis (Figure 1), the in-hospital risk of stroke or death for asymptomatic patients was significantly lower in double-certified centers (OR 0.55; 95%-CI 0.34–0.88, p = 0.014) compared to centers without cSU or cVC.
Figure 1.
Univariate analysis of the association with the primary endpoint. Indication group A: asymptomatic patients. Indication group B: symptomatic patients receiving elective CEA or CAS. Indication group C: Patients treated by CEA or CAS for other indications. OR: odds ratio, cVC = certified vascular center, cSU = certified stroke unit. Reference = center without cVC or cSU.
The multivariable regression analysis revealed a significantly lower primary outcome rate in centers with cSU in asymptomatic patients treated with CEA (aOR 0.69; 95%-CI 0.56–0.86; p < 0.001). In symptomatic patients treated with CEA needing emergency treatment (indication group C1), the presence of a cSU was associated with a significantly lower primary outcome rate (aOR 0.56; 95%-CI 0.40–0.80; p < 0.001), whereas the presence of a cVC was associated with a higher risk (aOR 3.07; 95%-CI 1.65–5.72). See Figure 2 for further details on CEA outcomes and Figure 3 regarding primary outcomes following CAS.
Figure 2.
Multivariable regression analysis for patients treated with CEA. aOR = odds ratio for the primary endpoint adjusted for age, sex, ASA stage, degree of stenosis ipsilateral and contralateral stenosis, pre- and post-procedural neurological examination, annual hospital volume (log-transformed), time-interval between index event and treatment (only group B), and neurological symptoms (only symptomatic patients). Reference = no on-site certified vascular center or stroke unit. * = statistical significance (p < 0.05).
Figure 3.
Multivariable regression analysis for patients treated with CAS. aOR = odds ratio for the primary endpoint adjusted for age, sex, ASA stage, degree of stenosis ipsilateral and contralateral stenosis, pre- and post-procedural neurological examination, annual hospital volume (log-transformed), time-interval between index event and treatment (only group B), and neurological symptoms (only symptomatic patients). Reference = no on-site certified vascular center or stroke unit. * = statistical significance (p < 0.05).
4. Discussion
The present study is based on a statutory state-wide Bavarian full survey and, to our knowledge, is the first study to analyze the influence of certified care structures in the treatment of carotid stenosis. In general, this study provides evidence of statistically significant better results in some sub-cohorts in certified centers, but there is no evidence of clinically relevant and comprehensive care deficits in clinics without either certification. In particular, the availability of an on-site cSU was associated with a significantly lower risk of any stroke or death following CEA in asymptomatic patients and symptomatic emergency patients with crescendo-TIA or stroke in evolution. Regarding CAS, on-site availability of a cVC was associated with a significantly lower risk of stroke or death in asymptomatic patients.
A main result of the present analysis was that CEA in asymptomatic patients was independently associated with lower in-hospital rates of stroke or death when performed in centers with cSU. However, CAS in asymptomatic patients was associated with a lower risk when performed in centers with cVC. This could be due to various factors, such as a higher annual volume and thus more experienced interventionalists, optimized processes, better patient management, or a higher ability to rescue. This might also be due to more precise indication for treatment and better method selection between CEA and CAS after multidisciplinary team review as recommended by international guidelines [2]. Unfortunately, all these factors are not documented in the nationwide legally defined quality assurance database and could, therefore, not be included in this analysis. Both CEA and CAS are procedures requiring sophisticated surgical or interventional skillsets and should ideally be performed by experienced practitioners in hospitals that are accustomed to performing the respective procedure on a regular basis. The performance of CEA and CAS requires the availability of hospital specialists with the appropriate qualifications. As presented in Table 2, almost every CEA was performed in a hospital with the availability of a vascular surgeon, but only 25% to 77% of CAS were performed in hospitals with a neuroradiologist. Unfortunately, we do not have detailed data on the individual interventions and the respective treating specialists, but only data on the availability of specialists in the individual hospitals. The training of specialists for CEA and CAS is not comparable, as CEA is performed by surgeons (vascular surgery, general surgery, neurosurgery), while CAS is mainly performed by interventionalists from radiology/neuroradiology or cardiology/angiology. Thus, our analysis cannot address how the surgeons/interventionalists were trained, as the data did not have to be recorded by the reporting hospitals. However, it can be assumed that CEA and CAS are performed in the majority of cases by differently trained physicians.
Hospitals with cVC and cSU probably have structural and personnel means for in-house training, vascular specialists, and a higher annual caseload compared to less specialized centers. Although multivariable regression analysis adjusted for hospital-level annual caseload, this observation might be traced back to individual surgeon experience, which is unfortunately not documented in the underlying database. For CEA, several studies have shown the performing surgeon’s specialty and case volume to have a significant effect on perioperative stroke and death risk [21,22,23,38,39]. Similar results, although not for hospital-linked CAS volumes, were found to be true for operator-linked CAS volumes [20]. The higher annual caseload was found in hospitals with certified structures, with the highest annual center volume in hospitals with both cSU and cVC (median 94), and the lowest annual center caseload in hospitals without any center certification (median 14). Particularly with regard to the endpoint death, hospitals with certified centers and higher annual volume probably also had more specialized departments and, thus, presumably better ability to rescue. However, on the basis of quality registry data, this analysis cannot prove what causes what and whether inverse causation is also involved.
An association between favorable outcomes and the availability of a cSU was found for CEA but not for CAS. The effect was strongest in group C1 (symptomatic, emergency cases), which may indicate the importance of perioperative and postoperative neurological patient monitoring and treatment. A possible explanation for this effect not being observed for CAS could be due to the narrow indication window for revascularization, with CAS showing higher risk during the first hours after symptom onset [40,41,42]. However, studies have shown that CAS performed by trained vascular surgeons significantly improves the outcome considering postoperative stroke and hospital readmission [43]. Overall, median caseloads for all hospitals considering CAS were lower than CEA. This might be explained by pointed guideline recommendations for CAS or local/individual preferences. Furthermore, the performance of complex stenting procedures requires specially trained personnel with appropriate equipment, which is more likely available in larger (certified) centers. Additionally, financial incentives regarding the DRG reimbursement system for stroke units, which are missing for vascular centers, could explain center distribution in favor of cSU and, thus, better personnel and material resources.
In summary, this study provides evidence of statistically significant better results in some sub-cohorts in certified centers, but there is no evidence of clinically relevant and comprehensive care deficits in clinics without either certification.
5. Limitations
This is a secondary data analysis, and thus, all shortcomings of observational studies using routine data must be considered as previously reported [21,32]. First, no information on the cause of death is provided in the registry. Second, the study design was retrospective and observational [44]. Because patients were not randomized for the different hospital groups, selection bias as well as confounding by indication is possible [45]. This implies that all results need to be interpreted as associations rather than causal relationships. Third, follow-up data covered only the in-hospital period. Because most of the perioperative events presumably occur within the first days after CEA or CAS, a detection bias is considered to be low [17]. Fourth, all data in the database are self-reported by the attending physicians, and reporting bias cannot be ruled out. However, data reports were reviewed by the regional offices for quality assurance (Landesgeschäftsstellen für Qualitätssicherung), and the occurrence of suspect data induced a process of so-called structured dialogue to clarify abnormalities systematically. Although under-reporting cannot be ruled out, any potential information bias is considered homogeneous among the variables analyzed in this study. Fifth, residual confounding cannot be excluded because some possible confounders were not collected (e.g., information on specific comorbidities, vascular anatomy, cardiovascular risk profile, routine medication, presence of restenosis, intraoperative heparin application or the reasons for the application or changes in a certain procedural technique). Sixth, only the degree of stenosis is given in the quality assurance database, while no detailed data on other sonographic features such as peak systolic velocity, plaque morphology, or calcification are included in the database [46,47].
Seventh, the German quality assurance database does not provide detailed information on comorbidities. The only variable related to comorbidity status that was available in the database and could, therefore, be analyzed was the preoperative stage in the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. ASA status was included in the multivariable regression to enable at least a basic risk adjustment. However, the inclusion of detailed information on patients’ comorbidities could have led to a more robust analysis.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Eva Knipfer, MHBA, and Lan Zang, both from the Department for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich. Additionally, we thank Volker Schmid from the Department of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich. Furthermore, we thank Thomas Lang, Michael Salvermoser, Joana Huber, and Simon Heuberger, all former employees of the Department for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich. Finally, we thank Peter Hermanek and Rebecca Moser, all from the Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft zur datengestützten, einrichtungsübergreifenden Qualitätssicherung in Bayern (LAG Bayern), and the employees from the IQTIG, for their valuable support with data extraction. Furthermore, we would like to thank the German Vascular Society and the German Stroke Society for the lists of certified vascular centers and stroke units.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm13154407/s1, Table S1: Secondary outcomes in patients treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Table S2: Secondary outcomes in patients treated with carotid artery stenting (CAS). Table S3: Regional characteristics of treating hospitals. Figure S1: Patient flowchart.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, C.K., M.K., B.B., V.L., S.L., H.-H.E. and A.K.; Data curation, B.B., V.L. and S.N.; Formal analysis, B.B., S.N., J.B. and A.K.; Funding acquisition, H.-H.E. and A.K.; Methodology, C.K., M.K., B.B., V.L., J.B., S.L., H.-H.E. and A.K.; Project administration, H.-H.E. and A.K.; Resources, H.-H.E. and A.K.; Software, B.B. and J.B.; Supervision, H.-H.E. and A.K.; Validation, S.S., C.K., M.K., F.K., B.B., V.L., S.N. and A.K.; Visualization, S.N.; Writing—original draft, S.S. and A.K.; Writing—review and editing, S.S., C.K., M.K., F.K., B.B., V.L., S.N., J.B., S.L., H.-H.E. and A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty, Technical University of Munich (Reference Number 107/20S, Approval Date: 30 March 2020).
Informed Consent Statement
The study is a secondary data analysis, and thus, individual patients’ informed consent was not required. The legal basis for the publication of the patient data transmitted to the Federal Statistical Office in accordance with § 21 (3) sentence 1 no. 4 of the Hospital Remuneration Act is § 28 (4) of the Hospital Financing Act. Thus, individual patients’ consent to participate is deemed unnecessary according to the abovementioned national regulations.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets analyzed during the current study are available on request from the IQTIG, https://iqtig.org/qs-verfahren-uebersicht/sekundaere-datennutzung/.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by Germany’s Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund (G-BA Innovationsfonds, 01VSF19016 ISAR-IQ).
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.Aboyans V., Ricco J.B., Bartelink M.E.L., Bjorck M., Brodmann M., Cohnert T., Collet J.P., Czerny M., De Carlo M., Debus S., et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS): Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteriesEndorsed by: The European Stroke Organization (ESO)The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) Eur. Heart J. 2018;39:763–816. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Naylor R., Rantner B., Ancetti S., de Borst G.J., De Carlo M., Halliday A., Kakkos S.K., Markus H.S., McCabe D.J.H., Sillesen H., et al. Editor’s Choice—European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Atherosclerotic Carotid and Vertebral Artery Disease. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2023;65:7–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2022.04.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tsao C.W., Aday A.W., Almarzooq Z.I., Alonso A., Beaton A.Z., Bittencourt M.S., Boehme A.K., Buxton A.E., Carson A.P., Commodore-Mensah Y., et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2022 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;145:e153–e639. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Eckstein H.H., Kuhnl A., Berkefeld J., Lawall H., Storck M., Sander D. Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up in Extracranial Carotid Stenosis. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2020;117:801–807. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bonati L.H., Kakkos S., Berkefeld J., de Borst G.J., Bulbulia R., Halliday A., van Herzeele I., Koncar I., McCabe D.J., Lal A., et al. European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis. Eur. Stroke J. 2021;6:I–XLVII. doi: 10.1177/23969873211012121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Reiff T., Eckstein H.H., Mansmann U., Jansen O., Fraedrich G., Mudra H., Bockler D., Bohm M., Bruckmann H., Debus E.S., et al. Angioplasty in asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis vs. endarterectomy compared to best medical treatment: One-year interim results of SPACE-2. Int. J. Stroke. 2019;15:1747493019833017. doi: 10.1177/1747493019833017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nasr B., Crespy V., Penasse E., Gaudry M., Rosset E., Feugier P., Goueffic Y., Maurel B., Hostalrich A., Alric P., et al. Late Outcomes of Carotid Artery Stenting for Radiation Therapy-Induced Carotid Stenosis. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2022;29:921–928. doi: 10.1177/15266028211068757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Bonati L.H., Gregson J., Dobson J., McCabe D.J.H., Nederkoorn P.J., van der Worp H.B., de Borst G.J., Richards T., Cleveland T., Muller M.D., et al. Restenosis and risk of stroke after stenting or endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis in the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS): Secondary analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17:587–596. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30195-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cole T.S., Mezher A.W., Catapano J.S., Godzik J., Baranoski J.F., Nakaji P., Albuquerque F.C., Lawton M.T., Little A.S., Ducruet A.F. Nationwide Trends in Carotid Endarterectomy and Carotid Artery Stenting in the Post-CREST Era. Stroke. 2020;51:579–587. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.027388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Garg K., Chang H., Siracuse J.J., Jacobowitz G.R., Torres J., Veith F.J., Patel V.I., Maldonado T.S., Sadek M., Cayne N.S., et al. Severity of stenosis in symptomatic patients undergoing carotid interventions might influence perioperative neurologic events. J. Vasc. Surg. 2022;76:741–749.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.02.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Silver F.L., Mackey A., Clark W.M., Brooks W., Timaran C.H., Chiu D., Goldstein L.B., Meschia J.F., Ferguson R.D., Moore W.S., et al. Safety of stenting and endarterectomy by symptomatic status in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) Stroke. 2011;42:675–680. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.610212. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Brott T.G., Hobson R.W., 2nd, Howard G., Roubin G.S., Clark W.M., Brooks W., Mackey A., Hill M.D., Leimgruber P.P., Sheffet A.J., et al. Stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid-artery stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010;363:11–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Rosenfield K., Matsumura J.S., Chaturvedi S., Riles T., Ansel G.M., Metzger D.C., Wechsler L., Jaff M.R., Gray W., Investigators A.I. Randomized Trial of Stent versus Surgery for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016;374:1011–1020. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Mas J.L., Chatellier G., Beyssen B., Branchereau A., Moulin T., Becquemin J.P., Larrue V., Lievre M., Leys D., Bonneville J.F., et al. Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006;355:1660–1671. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.International Carotid Stenting Study Investigators Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study): An interim analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:985–997. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60239-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Yadav J.S., Wholey M.H., Kuntz R.E., Fayad P., Katzen B.T., Mishkel G.J., Bajwa T.K., Whitlow P., Strickman N.E., Jaff M.R., et al. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;351:1493–1501. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Halliday A., Bulbulia R., Bonati L.H., Chester J., Cradduck-Bamford A., Peto R., Pan H., Group A.-C. Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): A randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy. Lancet. 2021;398:1065–1073. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01910-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Cui L., Han Y., Zhang S., Liu X., Zhang J. Safety of Stenting and Endarterectomy for Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2018;55:614–624. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.02.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Seretis K., Goudakos I., Vlachakis I., Anthimidis G., Papadimitriou D. Carotid artery disease in octogenarians: Endarterectomy or stenting? Int. Angiol. 2007;26:353–360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kallmayer M.A., Salvermoser M., Knappich C., Trenner M., Karlas A., Wein F., Eckstein H.H., Kuehnl A. Quality appraisal of systematic reviews, and meta-analysis of the hospital/surgeon-linked volume-outcome relationship of carotid revascularization procedures. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2019;60:354–363. doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509.19.10943-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kuehnl A., Tsantilas P., Knappich C., Schmid S., Konig T., Breitkreuz T., Zimmermann A., Mansmann U., Eckstein H.H. Significant Association of Annual Hospital Volume With the Risk of Inhospital Stroke or Death Following Carotid Endarterectomy but Likely Not After Carotid Stenting: Secondary Data Analysis of the Statutory German Carotid Quality Assurance Database. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016;9:e004171. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Poorthuis M.H.F., Brand E.C., Halliday A., Bulbulia R., Bots M.L., de Borst G.J. High Operator and Hospital Volume Are Associated With a Decreased Risk of Death and Stroke After Carotid Revascularization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann. Surg. 2019;269:631–641. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.AbuRahma A.F., Stone P.A., Srivastava M., Hass S.M., Mousa A.Y., Dean L.S., Campbell J.E., Chong B.Y. The effect of surgeon’s specialty and volume on the perioperative outcome of carotid endarterectomy. J. Vasc. Surg. 2013;58:666–672. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2013.02.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.German Vascular Society Zertifizierung Gefaesszentren: Minimalanforderungen für die Zertifizierung zum Gefäßzentrum. [(accessed on 12 December 2023)]. Available online: https://www.dgg-akademie.de/anforderungsprofil-gefaesszentren/
- 25.Neumann-Haefelin T., Busse O., Faiss J., Koennecke H.C., Ossenbrink M., Steinmetz H., Nabavi D. Zertifizierungskriterien für Stroke-Units in Deutschland: Update 2022. DGNeurologie. 2021;4:438–446. doi: 10.1007/s42451-021-00379-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Knappich C., Bohmann B., Kirchhoff F., Lohe V., Naher S., Kallmayer M., Eckstein H.H., Kuehnl A. Intraoperative Completion Studies and their Associations with Carotid Endarterectomy Outcomes. Ann. Surg. 2024 doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006284. online-ahead-of-print . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kuehnl A., Kallmayer M., Bohmann B., Lohe V., Moser R., Naher S., Kirchhoff F., Eckstein H.H., Knappich C. Association between hospital ownership and patient selection, management, and outcomes after carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stenting—Secondary data analysis of the Bavarian statutory quality assurance database. BMC Surg. 2024;24:158. doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02448-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.LAG Bayern GbR Verfahren 7—Karotis-Revaskularisation (QS KAROTIS) [(accessed on 17 July 2024)]. Available online: https://lag-by.de/qs-verfahren/deqs-richtlinie/qs-karotis/
- 29.Bundesausschuss G. Qualitätsförderungs- und Durchsetzungs-Richtlinie. 2019. [(accessed on 17 July 2024)]. Available online: https://www.g-ba.de/richtlinien/109/
- 30.Swart E., Gothe H., Geyer S., Jaunzeme J., Maier B., Grobe T.G., Ihle P. Good Practice of Secondary Data Analysis (GPS): Guidelines and recommendations. Gesundheitswesen. 2015;77:120–126. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1396815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Benchimol E.I., Smeeth L., Guttmann A., Harron K., Hemkens L.G., Moher D., Petersen I., Sorensen H.T., von Elm E., Langan S.M., et al. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. Z. Evid. Fortbild. Qual. Gesundhwes. 2016;115–116:33–48. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2016.07.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Eckstein H.H., Tsantilas P., Kuhnl A., Haller B., Breitkreuz T., Zimmermann A., Kallmayer M. Surgical and Endovascular Treatment of Extracranial Carotid Stenosis. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2017;114:729–736. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Nimptsch U., Krautz C., Weber G.F., Mansky T., Grutzmann R. Nationwide In-hospital Mortality Following Pancreatic Surgery in Germany is Higher than Anticipated. Ann. Surg. 2016;264:1082–1090. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Nimptsch U., Mansk T. Deaths Following Cholecystectomy and Herniotomy: An Analysis of Nationwide German Hospital Discharge Data From 2009 to 2013. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2015;112:535–543. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0535. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Nimptsch U., Mansky T. Trends in acute inpatient stroke care in Germany--an observational study using administrative hospital data from 2005–2010. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2012;109:885–892. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.R Foundation The R Project for Statistical Computing. [(accessed on 20 July 2022)]. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/
- 37.North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial C. Barnett H.J.M., Taylor D.W., Haynes R.B., Sackett D.L., Peerless S.J., Ferguson G.G., Fox A.J., Rankin R.N., Hachinski V.C., et al. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 1991;325:445–453. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199108153250701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Patel P.D., Khanna O., Lan M., Baldassari M., Momin A., Mouchtouris N., Tjoumakaris S., Gooch R., Rosenwasser R.H., Farrell C., et al. The effect of institutional case volume on post-operative outcomes after endarterectomy and stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis. J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 2024;33:107828. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2024.107828. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Alonso A., Kobzeva-Herzog A.J., Yahn C., Farber A., King E.G., Hicks C., Eslami M.H., Patel V.I., Rybin D., Siracuse J.J. Higher stroke risk after carotid endarterectomy and transcarotid artery revascularization is associated with relative surgeon volume ratio. J. Vasc. Surg. 2024 doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.05.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Tsantilas P., Kuehnl A., Kallmayer M., Knappich C., Schmid S., Breitkreuz T., Zimmermann A., Eckstein H.H. Risk of Stroke or Death Is Associated With the Timing of Carotid Artery Stenting for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis: A Secondary Data Analysis of the German Statutory Quality Assurance Database. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e007983. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Solomon Y., Conroy P.D., Rastogi V., Yadavalli S.D., Schneider P.A., Wang G.J., Malas M.B., de Borst G.J., Schermerhorn M.L. Outcomes following carotid revascularization for stroke stratified by Modified Rankin Scale and time of intervention. J. Vasc. Surg. 2024;79:287–296.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.10.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Coelho A., Peixoto J., Mansilha A., Naylor A.R., de Borst G.J. Editor’s Choice—Timing of Carotid Intervention in Symptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2022;63:3–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Muller M.D., Lyrer P., Brown M.M., Bonati L.H. Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020;2:CD000515. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000515.pub5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Steg P.G., Feldman L.J., Omerovic E. Observational studies play little role in guiding evidence-based medicine: Pros and cons. EuroIntervention. 2024;20:29–31. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-E-23-00023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Shapiro S. Confounding by indication? Epidemiology. 1997;8:110–111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Winzer S., Rickmann H., Kitzler H., Abramyuk A., Krogias C., Strohm H., Barlinn J., Pallesen L.P., Siepmann T., Arnold S., et al. Ultrasonography Grading of Internal Carotid Artery Disease: Multiparametric German Society of Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM) versus Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) Consensus Criteria. Ultraschall Med. 2022;43:608–613. doi: 10.1055/a-1487-5941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Cassola N., Baptista-Silva J.C., Nakano L.C., Flumignan C.D., Sesso R., Vasconcelos V., Carvas Junior N., Flumignan R.L. Duplex ultrasound for diagnosing symptomatic carotid stenosis in the extracranial segments. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022;7:CD013172. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets analyzed during the current study are available on request from the IQTIG, https://iqtig.org/qs-verfahren-uebersicht/sekundaere-datennutzung/.