Methods: SVS-VR on-line provider-reported data include baseline t

Methods: SVS-VR on-line provider-reported data include baseline through follow-up visits to better understand long-term risks and benefits associated

with CAS and CEA. The primary outcomes are combined death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). An independent data coordinating center maintains the database, which is Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant and auditable.

Results: As of December 26, 2007, 6403 procedures with discharge data were entered by 287 providers at 56 centers oil 2763 CAS patients ZD1839 ic50 (1450 with 30-day outcomes, 52.5%) and 3259 CEA patients (1368 with 30-day outcomes, 42%). Of the total cohort, 98% of CEA and 70.7% of CAS (P < .001) were performed for atherosclerotic disease. Restenosis accounted for 22.3% and post-radiation induced stenosis in 4.5% of CAS patients. Preprocedure lateralizing neurologic symptoms were present in a greater proportion of CAS patients (49.2%) than CEA patients (42.4%, P < .001). CAS patients also had higher preprocedure prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD), MI, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cardiac arrhythmia. For

CAS, death/stroke/MI at 30 days was 7.13% for symptomatic patients and 4.60% for asymptomatic patients (P = .04). For CEA, death/stroke/MI at 30 days was 3.75% in symptomatic patients and 1.97% in asymptomatic patients (P = .05). After risk-adjustment for age, history of stroke, diabetes, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade lie, factors found to be significant confounders in outcomes using backwards elimination), logistic regression analysis suggested better outcomes following CEA. There were no statistically significant differences when examining CAS outcomes based on center volume. CAS in atherosclerotic disease had significantly worse outcomes than in nonatherosclerotic stenosis. NADPH-cytochrome-c2 reductase When CAS and CEA were compared in the treatment of atherosclerotic disease

only, the difference in outcomes between the two procedures was more pronounced, with death/stroke/MI 6.42% after CAS vs; 2.62% following CEA, P < .0001.

Conclusion: Following best possible risk adjustment of these unmatched groups, symptomatic and asymptomatic CAS patients had significantly higher 30-day postprocedure incidence of death/stroke/MI when compared with CEA patients. The initial 1.5 years of data collection provide proof of concept that a specialty society based VR can succeed in meeting regulatory and scientific goats. With continued enrollment and follow-up, analysis of SVS-VR will supplement randomized trials by providing real-world comparisons of CAS and CEA with sufficient numbers to serve as an outcome assessment tool of important patient subsets and across the spectrum of peripheral vascular procedures.

Comments are closed.