Christoph Knappich, Bianca Bohmann, Felix Kirchhoff, Vanessa Lohe, Shamsun Naher, Michael Kallmayer, Hans-Henning Eckstein, Andreas Kuehnl
{"title":"术中完成研究及其与颈动脉内膜切除术结果的关系","authors":"Christoph Knappich, Bianca Bohmann, Felix Kirchhoff, Vanessa Lohe, Shamsun Naher, Michael Kallmayer, Hans-Henning Eckstein, Andreas Kuehnl","doi":"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed at assessing outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in dependence of center policy with respect to imaging intraoperative completion study (ICS i ) usage.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Although randomized controlled studies are missing, a beneficial effect was shown for ICS i techniques (ie, angiography and intraoperative duplex ultrasound) after CEA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This secondary data analysis is based on the German statutory quality assurance database. The research was funded by Germany's Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund (G-BA Innovationsfonds, 01VSF19016 ISAR-IQ). According to their ICS i policy, hospitals were categorized as routine ICS i (>90%), selective ICS i (10%-90%), or sporadic ICS i (<10%) centers. Primary study outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Multivariable regression analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2012 and 2016, a total of 119,800 patients underwent CEA. In-hospital stroke or death rates were lower in routine ICS i centers (1.7%) compared with selective (2.1%) and sporadic ICS i centers (2.0%). The multivariable regression analysis showed, that in routine ICS i centers, ICS i use was associated with lower rates of stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93). In selective ICS i centers, ICS i was not associated with the occurrence of either of the assessed outcomes. In sporadic ICS i centers, ICS i was associated with higher rates of stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.26-2.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lowest in-hospital stroke or death rates are achieved in routine ICS i centers. Although ICS i is associated with a lower perioperative risk in routine ICS i centers, it might act as a surrogate marker for worse outcomes due to intraoperative irregularities in sporadic ICS i centers. Routine use of ICS i is advisable.</p>","PeriodicalId":8017,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"154-162"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140550/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intraoperative Completion Studies and Their Associations With Carotid Endarterectomy Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Christoph Knappich, Bianca Bohmann, Felix Kirchhoff, Vanessa Lohe, Shamsun Naher, Michael Kallmayer, Hans-Henning Eckstein, Andreas Kuehnl\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed at assessing outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in dependence of center policy with respect to imaging intraoperative completion study (ICS i ) usage.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Although randomized controlled studies are missing, a beneficial effect was shown for ICS i techniques (ie, angiography and intraoperative duplex ultrasound) after CEA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This secondary data analysis is based on the German statutory quality assurance database. The research was funded by Germany's Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund (G-BA Innovationsfonds, 01VSF19016 ISAR-IQ). According to their ICS i policy, hospitals were categorized as routine ICS i (>90%), selective ICS i (10%-90%), or sporadic ICS i (<10%) centers. Primary study outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Multivariable regression analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2012 and 2016, a total of 119,800 patients underwent CEA. In-hospital stroke or death rates were lower in routine ICS i centers (1.7%) compared with selective (2.1%) and sporadic ICS i centers (2.0%). The multivariable regression analysis showed, that in routine ICS i centers, ICS i use was associated with lower rates of stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93). In selective ICS i centers, ICS i was not associated with the occurrence of either of the assessed outcomes. In sporadic ICS i centers, ICS i was associated with higher rates of stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.26-2.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lowest in-hospital stroke or death rates are achieved in routine ICS i centers. Although ICS i is associated with a lower perioperative risk in routine ICS i centers, it might act as a surrogate marker for worse outcomes due to intraoperative irregularities in sporadic ICS i centers. Routine use of ICS i is advisable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"154-162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12140550/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006284\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006284","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Intraoperative Completion Studies and Their Associations With Carotid Endarterectomy Outcomes.
Objective: This study aimed at assessing outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in dependence of center policy with respect to imaging intraoperative completion study (ICS i ) usage.
Background: Although randomized controlled studies are missing, a beneficial effect was shown for ICS i techniques (ie, angiography and intraoperative duplex ultrasound) after CEA.
Methods: This secondary data analysis is based on the German statutory quality assurance database. The research was funded by Germany's Federal Joint Committee Innovation Fund (G-BA Innovationsfonds, 01VSF19016 ISAR-IQ). According to their ICS i policy, hospitals were categorized as routine ICS i (>90%), selective ICS i (10%-90%), or sporadic ICS i (<10%) centers. Primary study outcome was in-hospital stroke or death. Multivariable regression analyses were performed.
Results: Between 2012 and 2016, a total of 119,800 patients underwent CEA. In-hospital stroke or death rates were lower in routine ICS i centers (1.7%) compared with selective (2.1%) and sporadic ICS i centers (2.0%). The multivariable regression analysis showed, that in routine ICS i centers, ICS i use was associated with lower rates of stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93). In selective ICS i centers, ICS i was not associated with the occurrence of either of the assessed outcomes. In sporadic ICS i centers, ICS i was associated with higher rates of stroke or death (adjusted odds ratio: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.26-2.91).
Conclusions: Lowest in-hospital stroke or death rates are achieved in routine ICS i centers. Although ICS i is associated with a lower perioperative risk in routine ICS i centers, it might act as a surrogate marker for worse outcomes due to intraoperative irregularities in sporadic ICS i centers. Routine use of ICS i is advisable.
期刊介绍:
The Annals of Surgery is a renowned surgery journal, recognized globally for its extensive scholarly references. It serves as a valuable resource for the international medical community by disseminating knowledge regarding important developments in surgical science and practice. Surgeons regularly turn to the Annals of Surgery to stay updated on innovative practices and techniques. The journal also offers special editorial features such as "Advances in Surgical Technique," offering timely coverage of ongoing clinical issues. Additionally, the journal publishes monthly review articles that address the latest concerns in surgical practice.