ArticleJournal of vascular surgery2016
Physician specialty and variation in carotid revascularization technique selected for Medicare patients.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac testing choices by physician specialty in the CMR-IMPACT trial.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2025Trial
- Contemporary carotid artery stenting practices and peri-procedural outcomes in different European countries: ROADSAVER study multicentric insights.CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
- Physician variation in the de-adoption of ineffective statin and fibrate therapy.Health services research · 2021Article
- Contemporary Trends in Physician Utilization Rates of CEA and CAS for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis among Medicare Beneficiaries.Annals of vascular surgery · 2021Article
- Carotid Endarterectomy Versus Carotid Artery Stenting: Survey of the Quality, Readability, and Treatment Preference of Carotid Artery Disease Websites.Interactive journal of medical research · 2020Article
- Patient and provider-level factors associated with changes in utilization of treatments in response to evidence on ineffectiveness or harm.International journal of health economics and management · 2020Article
- Regional frequency variation of revascularization procedures for carotid stenosis in Germany: Secondary data analysis of DRG data from 2012 to 2014.Gefasschirurgie : Zeitschrift fur vaskulare und endovaskulare Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschen und der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft fur Gefasschirurgie unter Mitarbeit der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fur Gefasschirurgie · 2018Article
- National Patterns of Carotid Revascularization Before and After the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs Stenting Trial (CREST).JAMA neurology · 2018Article
- Regional variation in patient selection and treatment for carotid artery disease in the Vascular Quality Initiative.Journal of vascular surgery · 2017Article
- Impact of Clinical Trial Results on the Temporal Trends of Carotid Endarterectomy and Stenting From 2002 to 2014.Stroke · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCarotid artery stenting (CAS) has become an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for select patients with carotid atherosclerosis. We hypothesized that the choice of CAS vs CEA varies as a function of treating physician specialty, which would result in regional variation in the relative use of these treatment types.
methodsWe used Medicare claims (2002-2010) to calculate annual rates of CAS and CEA and examined changes by procedure type over time. To assess regional preferences surrounding CAS, we calculated the proportion of revascularizations by CAS, across hospital referral regions, defined according to the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare. We then examined relationships between patient factors, physician specialty, and regional use of CAS.
resultsThe annual number of all carotid revascularization procedures decreased by 30% from 2002 to 2010 (3.2 to 2.3 per 1000; P = .005). Whereas rates of CEA declined by 35% during these 8 years (3.0 to 1.9 per 1000; P < .001), CAS utilization increased by 5% during the same interval (0.30 to 0.32 per 1000; P = .014). Variation in utilization of carotid revascularization varied across the Unites States, with some regions performing as few as 0.7 carotid procedure per 1000 beneficiaries (Honolulu, Hawaii) and others performing nearly 8 times as many (5.3 per 1000 in Houma, La). Variation in procedure type (CEA vs CAS) was evident as well, as the proportion of carotid revascularization procedures that were constituted by CAS varied from 0% (Casper, Wyo, and Meridian, Miss) to 53% (Bend, Ore). The majority of CAS procedures were performed by cardiologists (49% of all CAS cases), who doubled their rates of CAS during the study period from 0.07 per 1000 in 2002 to 0.15 per 1000 in 2010.
conclusionsVariation in rates of carotid revascularization exists. Whereas rates of carotid revascularization have declined by more than 30% in recent years, utilization of CAS has increased. The proportion of all carotid revascularization procedures performed as CAS varies markedly by geographic region, and regions with the highest proportion of cardiologists perform the most CAS procedures. Evidence-based guidelines for carotid revascularization will require a multidisciplinary approach to ensure uniform adoption across specialties that care for patients with carotid artery disease.
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.