ArticleSurgical neurology international2012
Creating accountable care for carotid angioplasty and stenting: A multidisciplinary carotid revascularization board.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary Approach to Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Cryptogenic Stroke: Brain-Heart Board Experience.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe tested the feasibility of a mandated multidisciplinary carotid revascularization board (MDCB) to review, approve and monitor all carotid artery and stenting (CAS) procedures and outcomes at our institution.
methodsThe board was composed of vascular surgeons, cardiologists, interventional neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, and neurologists, who met weekly to facilitate an evidence-based, consensus recommendation to ensure appropriate CAS referral.
resultsThe board successfully reviewed and continues to review and approve all CAS procedures at our center. Of the 69 patients considered high risk for standard surgical treatment, 42 patients were symptomatic and 27 patients were asymptomatic. Their mean age was 70.5-year-old and the median degree of stenosis was 79%. In the 74 procedures, periprocedural complications occurred at the following rates: 2.7% death, 2.7% major stroke, 2.7% minor stroke, and 2.7% myocardial infarction (MI) within 30 days of the procedure. At 1 year the primary endpoints of ipsilateral stroke and neurovascular-related death were observed in 8.1% and 2.7% of the patients, respectively. At mean follow-up of 21 months, 18.8% of the patients (13/69) had died (including all causes), and 14.5% (10/69) experienced stroke (including nontarget strokes). Target vessel revascularization was needed in 2.9% patients.
conclusionsA mandated multidisciplinary carotid revascularization board MDCB is feasible and potentially advantageous in real clinical practice. It establishes a model for accountable care by providing a mechanism for institutional oversight, credentialing operators, quality review, standardizing care, cost containment and eliminating the "subspecialty silo mentality."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.