ArticleJournal of vascular surgery2025
Textbook outcomes as a novel patient-centric metric to inform carotid revascularization.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery, 2025. 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.
- Textbook outcomes for lower extremity bypass: A useful quality metric for care optimization.Journal of vascular surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe recent National Coverage Determination surrounding carotid stenting and shared decision-making has ushered in an era of patient-centric carotid care. However, historical carotid intervention endpoints have lacked patient-centered nuances to inform clinical decisions. Accordingly, we aimed to create a comprehensive novel, patient-centric textbook outcome (TO) to inform treatment paradigms.
methodsWe developed a novel composite TO for patients who underwent carotid revascularization reflecting a combination of patient-centric outcomes derived from previous patient interviews and the published literature. We defined a TO to include freedom from postprocedural neurologic events, myocardial infarction, cranial nerve injury, return to the operating room, reperfusion syndrome, or access site complications. The endpoint also included discharge on postprocedural day 1, home discharge, and 30-day survival. We measured the risk of a TO vs non-TO among asymptomatic patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR), or transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TF-CAS) in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) from 2016 to 2023.
resultsWe studied 72,778 patients who underwent carotid revascularization, 70.3% CEA, 21.0% TCAR, and 8.7% TF-CAS. The mean age across all patients was 71.6 ± 8.4 years, 39.9% were female, and 91.7% were White. A TO was achieved in 76.9% of patients, and was 76.7% after CEA, 76.5% after TCAR, and 79.1% after TF-CAS (P < .001). Postprocedural length of stay was 2 days or more in 21.0% of patients, and was 21.1% after CEA, 21.6% after TCAR, and 18.4% after TF-CAS (P < .001). Postprocedural neurologic events occurred in 1.0% of patients after CEA, 1.3% after TCAR, and 1.4% after TF-CAS (P = .037). A sensitivity analysis of the TO that did not include postprocedural length of stay demonstrated a non-TO in 5.9% of patients after CEA, 5.5% after TCAR, and 6.3% after TF-CAS (P = .070). Patients who did not achieve a TO had inferior 5-year survival compared with patients who did have a TO across all three cohorts (log-rank P < .001).
conclusionsThis novel patient-centric endpoint demonstrated that a substantial percentage of patients fail to achieve a TO in current practice, and that failure to achieve a TO was associated with inferior 5-year survival. These findings are particularly important in light of the recent Medicare mandate for a shared decision-making approach to carotid care delivery and may help to best align patient preferences with procedure type.
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.