Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914838›Full record

ArticleJournal of vascular surgery2019

A comparison of reintervention rates after endovascular aneurysm repair between the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, Medicare claims, and chart review.

Jesse A Columbo, Ravinder Kang, Andrew W Hoel, Jeanwan Kang, Kathleen A Leinweber, Karissa S Tauber, Regis Hila, Niveditta Ramkumar, Art Sedrakyan, Philip P Goodney

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vascular surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04204564 (Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network and the Vascular Quality Initiative Paclitaxel Safety Analysis), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04204564 unknown statusnot on this map

Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network and the Vascular Quality Initiative Paclitaxel Safety Analysis

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversity of Vermont Medical CenterRan2012 to 2020Enrolled20,000ConditionsPADArmspactlitaxel PAD device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Biodesign: Engineering an aortic endograft explantation tool.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jesse A ColumboSection of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; VA Quality Scholars Program, Veterans Health Association, White River Junction, Vt; VA Outcomes Group, Veterans Health Association, White River Junction, Vt; Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH; Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. Electronic address: jesse.a.columbo@hitchcock.org.
Ravinder KangSection of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; VA Quality Scholars Program, Veterans Health Association, White River Junction, Vt; VA Outcomes Group, Veterans Health Association, White River Junction, Vt; Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH; Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Andrew W HoelDivision of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill.
Jeanwan KangSection of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Kathleen A LeinweberGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Karissa S TauberGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Regis HilaGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Niveditta RamkumarDartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
Art SedrakyanDepartment of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.
Philip P GoodneySection of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; VA Outcomes Group, Veterans Health Association, White River Junction, Vt; Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH; Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

Funding

UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVING EPISODE-BASED HOSPITAL CAREP01AG019783 · NIA · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Alistair James O'MALLEY · 2001 to 2026
$52.9M
Creating National Surveillance Infrastructure for Priority Medical DevicesU01FD005478 · FDA · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI SEDRAKYAN, ART · 2015 to 2019
$6.5M
Technology Diffusion, Health Outcomes, and Healthcare ExpendituresU01AG046830 · NIA · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI SKINNER, JONATHAN S · 2013 to 2017
$4.5M
FDA HHS U01 FD005478NIA NIH HHS P01 AG019783NIA NIH HHS U01 AG046830
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe accurate measurement of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical during postoperative surveillance. The purpose of this study was to compare reintervention rates after EVAR from three different data sources: the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) alone, VQI linked to Medicare claims (VQI-Medicare), and a "gold standard" of clinical chart review supplemented with telephone interviews.

methodsWe reviewed the medical records of 729 patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between 2003 and 2013. We excluded patients without follow-up reported to the VQI (n = 68 [9%]) or without Medicare claims information (n = 114 [16%]). All patients in the final analytic cohort (n = 547) had follow-up information available from all three data sources (VQI alone, VQI linked to Medicare, and chart review). We then compared reintervention rates between the three data sources. Our primary end points were the agreement between the three data sources and the Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of reintervention at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after EVAR. For gold standard assessment, we supplemented chart review with telephone interview as necessary to assess reintervention.

resultsVQI data alone identified 12 reintervention events in the first year after EVAR. Chart review confirmed all 12 events and identified 18 additional events not captured by the VQI. VQI-Medicare data successfully identified all 30 of these events within the first year. VQI-Medicare also documented four reinterventions in this time period that did not occur on the basis of patient interview (4/547 [0.7%]). The agreement between chart review and VQI-Medicare data at 1 year was excellent (κ = 0.93). At 3 years, there were 81 (18%) reinterventions detected by VQI-Medicare and 70 (16%) detected by chart review for a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 96%, and κ of 0.80. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated similar reintervention rates after 3 years between VQI-Medicare and chart review (log-rank, P = .59).

conclusionsChart review after EVAR demonstrated a 6% 1-year and 16% 3-year reintervention rate, and almost all (92%) of these events were accurately captured using VQI-Medicare data. Linking VQI data with Medicare claims allows an accurate assessment of reintervention rates after EVAR without labor-intensive physician chart review.

Indexed as

Administrative Claims, HealthcareMedical RecordsMedicareReoperationAgedAged, 80 and overAortic AneurysmBlood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationData MiningEndovascular ProceduresFemaleHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesMaleMedical Record LinkagePostoperative ComplicationsEVAREvent adjudicationICD-9 codes for reinterventionMedicare claimsReintervention

Identifiers

PMID29914838
PMCPMC6481637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.