Systematic review of carotid artery procedures and the volume–outcome relationship in Europe. BJS 2017; 104: 1273-1283.
Published: 20th June 2017
Authors: P. Phillips, E. Poku, M. Essat, H. B. Woods, E. A. Goka, E. C. Kaltenthaler et al.
Hospitals that conduct more procedures on the carotid arteries may achieve better outcomes. In the context of ongoing reconfiguration of UK vascular services, this systematic review was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the volume of carotid procedures and outcomes, including mortality and stroke.
Searches of electronic databases identified studies that reported the effect of hospital or clinician volume on outcomes. Reference and citation searches were also performed. Inclusion was restricted to European populations on the basis that the model of healthcare delivery is similar across Europe, but differs from that in the USA and elsewhere. Analyses of hospital and clinician volume, and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) were conducted separately.
Eleven eligible studies were identified (233 411 participants), five from the UK, two from Sweden, one each from Germany, Finland and Italy, and a combined German, Austrian and Swiss population. All studies were observational. Two large studies (179 736 patients) suggested an inverse relationship between hospital volume and mortality (number needed to treat (NNT) as low as 165), and combined mortality and stroke (NNT as low as 93), following CEA. The evidence was less clear for CAS; multiple analyses in three studies did not identify convincing evidence of an association. Limited data are available on the relationship between clinician volume and outcome in CAS; in CEA, an inverse relationship was identified by two of three small studies.
The evidence from the largest and highest‐quality studies included in this review support the centralization of CEA.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: K. Heikkila, I. M. Loftus, D. C. Mitchell, A. S. Johal, S. Waton, D. A. Cromwell et al.
Notes: lower than previously estimated
Cost‐effectiveness of population‐based vascular disease screening and intervention in men from the Viborg Vascular (VIVA) trial.
Authors: R. Søgaard, J. S. Lindholt
Notes: Highly cost effective
Five‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial comparing open surgery, foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation for great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2018; 105: 686-691.
Authors: S. Vähäaho, K. Halmesmäki, A. Albäck, E. Saarinen, M. Venermo
Notes: More foam recurrences
Eight‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial comparing ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy with surgical stripping of the great saphenous vein. BJS 2018; 105: 692-698.
Authors: Y. L. Lam, J. A. Lawson, I. M. Toonder, N. H. Shadid, A. Sommer, M. Veenstra et al.
Notes: Surgery better
Authors: M. J. Sweeting, P. Ulug, J. Roy, R. Hultgren, R. Indrakusuma, R. Balm et al.
Notes: Not much help
Follow‐up after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair can be stratified based on first postoperative imaging. BJS 2018; 105: 709-718.
Authors: H. Baderkhan, O. Haller, A. Wanhainen, M. Björck, K. Mani
Notes: Short sealing zones spell trouble
Risk of major amputation in patients with intermittent claudication undergoing early revascularization. BJS 2018; 105: 699-708.
Authors: J. Golledge, J. V. Moxon, S. Rowbotham, J. Pinchbeck, L. Yip, R. Velu et al.
Notes: Early revascularization associated with amputation
Authors: N. Rudarakanchana, M. P. Jenkins
Notes: Formidable challenge
Cellular and molecular imaging of the arteries in the age of precision medicine. BJS 2018; 105: 311-312.
Authors: R. O. Forsythe, D. E. Newby
Authors: R. E. Clough, R. Spear, K. Van Calster, A. Hertault, R. Azzaoui, J. Sobocinski et al.
Notes: Encouraging results in expert hands
Comparative analysis of the outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in England and Sweden. BJS 2018; 105: 520-528.
Authors: A. Karthikesalingam, M. J. Grima, P. J. Holt, A. Vidal‐Diez, M. M. Thompson, A. Wanhainen et al.
Notes: Improving in England
Participation in bowel screening among men attending abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. BJS 2018; 105: 529-534.
Authors: A. J. Quyn, C. G. Fraser, J. Rodger, A. Digan, A. S. Anderson, R. J. C. Steele et al.
Notes: Maximizing screening benefits