Geographic Variation and Trends in Carotid Imaging Among Medicare Beneficiaries, 2001 to 2006

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (Impact Factor: 5.04). 10/2010; 3(6):599-606. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.950279
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Diagnostic imaging among Medicare beneficiaries is an important contributor to rising health care costs. We examined temporal trends and geographic variation in the use of carotid ultrasound, carotid magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), and carotid x-ray angiography.
Analysis of a 5% national sample of claims from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for 1999 through 2006. Patients were 65 years or older and underwent carotid ultrasound, carotid MRA, carotid x-ray angiography, or a carotid intervention. The main outcome measures were annual age-adjusted rates of carotid imaging and interventions and factors associated with the use of carotid imaging. Rates of imaging increased by 27%, from 98.2 per 1000 person-years in 2001 to 124.3 per 1000 in 2006. Rates of carotid ultrasound increased by 23%, and rates of MRA increased by 66%. Carotid intervention rates decreased from 3.6 per 1000 person-years in 2001 to 3.1 per 1000 person-years in 2006. In 2006, rates of carotid ultrasound were lowest in the New England, Mountain, and West North Central regions and highest in the Middle Atlantic and South Atlantic regions. Regional differences persisted after adjustment for patient demographic characteristics, history of vascular disease and other comorbid conditions, and study year.
From 2001 through 2006, there was substantial growth and variation in the use of carotid imaging, including a marked increase in the use of MRA, and a decrease in the overall rate of carotid intervention.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize temporal trends, patient-specific factors, and geographic variation associated with amputation in patients with lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (LE PAD) during the study period. BACKGROUND: Amputation represents the end-stage failure for those with LE PAD, and little is known about the rates and geographic variation in the use of LE amputation. METHODS: By using data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2008, we examined national patterns of LE amputation among patients age 65 years or more with PAD. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust regional results for other patient demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Among 2,730,742 older patients with identified PAD, the overall rate of LE amputation decreased from 7,258 per 100,000 patients with PAD to 5,790 per 100,000 (p < 0.001 for trend). Male sex, black race, diabetes mellitus, and renal disease were all independent predictors of LE amputation. The adjusted odds ratio of LE amputation per year between 2000 and 2008 was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.95-0.95, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From 2000 to 2008, LE amputation rates decreased significantly among patients with PAD. However, there remains significant patient and geographic variation in amputation rates across the United States.
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 10/2012; 60(21). DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.983 · 15.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the comparison of clinical interventions in real-world settings. The purpose of this article is to discuss the experiences of a CER unit created within the radiology department of one medical institution to provide an example of how to pursue CER within the field of radiology. CONCLUSION. Medical institutions would benefit from investing in CER by creating research groups specifically devoted to this evolving field.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 03/2014; 202(3):561-5. DOI:10.2214/AJR.13.11464 · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite level I evidence supporting a role for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in the management of patients with asymptomatic carotid disease, there is surprisingly little international consensus regarding the optimal way to manage these patients. Review of current strategies for managing asymptomatic carotid disease MAIN FINDINGS: Those favouring a pro-interventional approach argue that: (i) until new randomised trials demonstrate that best medical therapy (BMT) is better than CEA or carotid artery stenting (CAS) in preventing stroke, guidelines of practice should remain unchanged; (ii) strokes secondary to carotid thromboembolism harboured a potentially treatable asymptomatic lesion prior to the event. Because 80% of strokes are not preceded by a TIA/minor stroke, CEA/CAS is the only way of preventing these strokes; (iii) screening for carotid disease could identify patients with significant asymptomatic stenoses who could undergo prophylactic CEA/CAS in order to prevent avoidable stroke; (iv) international guidelines already advise that only 'highly-selected' patients should undergo CEA/CAS; (v) the 30-day risks of death/stroke after CEA/CAS are diminishing and this will increase long-term stroke prevention and (vi) the alleged decline in annualized stroke rates in medically treated patients is based upon flawed data. The inescapable conclusion is that only a relatively small proportion of asymptomatic patients benefit from prophylactic CEA/CAS. The key question, therefore, remains; is society prepared to invest sufficient resources in identifying these 'high risk for stroke' patients so that they can benefit from aggressive BMT and CEA or CAS, leaving the majority of lower risk patients to be treated medically? Copyright © 2014 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    The surgeon: journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland 10/2014; 13(1). DOI:10.1016/j.surge.2014.08.004 · 2.21 Impact Factor