Cargando…

Can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis?

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is routinely performed for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, yet its average net benefit is small. Risk stratification may identify high risk patients that would clearly benefit from treatment. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Asymptomatic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burke, James F., Morgenstern, Lewis B., Hayward, Rodney A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6873682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31757218
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1528-7
_version_ 1783472715013816320
author Burke, James F.
Morgenstern, Lewis B.
Hayward, Rodney A.
author_facet Burke, James F.
Morgenstern, Lewis B.
Hayward, Rodney A.
author_sort Burke, James F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is routinely performed for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, yet its average net benefit is small. Risk stratification may identify high risk patients that would clearly benefit from treatment. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS). Risk factors for poor outcomes were included in backward and forward selection procedures to develop baseline risk models estimating the risk of non-perioperative ipsilateral stroke/TIA. Baseline risk was estimated for all ACAS participants and externally validated using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Baseline risk was then included in a treatment risk model that explored the interaction of baseline risk and treatment status (CEA vs. medical management) on the patient-centered outcome of any stroke or death, including peri-operative events. RESULTS: Three baseline risk factors (BMI, creatinine and degree of contralateral stenosis) were selected into our baseline risk model (c-statistic 0.59 [95% CI 0.54–0.65]). The model stratified absolute risk between the lowest and highest risk quintiles (5.1% vs. 12.5%). External validation in ARIC found similar predictiveness (c-statistic 0.58 [0.49–0.67]), but poor calibration across the risk spectrum. In the treatment risk model, CEA was superior to medical management across the spectrum of baseline risk and the magnitude of the treatment effect varied widely between the lowest and highest absolute risk quintiles (3.2% vs. 10.7%). CONCLUSION: Even modestly predictive risk stratification tools have the potential to meaningfully influence clinical decision making in asymptomatic carotid disease. However, our ACAS model requires target population recalibration prior to clinical application.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6873682
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68736822019-11-25 Can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis? Burke, James F. Morgenstern, Lewis B. Hayward, Rodney A. BMC Neurol Research Article BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is routinely performed for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, yet its average net benefit is small. Risk stratification may identify high risk patients that would clearly benefit from treatment. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data from the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS). Risk factors for poor outcomes were included in backward and forward selection procedures to develop baseline risk models estimating the risk of non-perioperative ipsilateral stroke/TIA. Baseline risk was estimated for all ACAS participants and externally validated using data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Baseline risk was then included in a treatment risk model that explored the interaction of baseline risk and treatment status (CEA vs. medical management) on the patient-centered outcome of any stroke or death, including peri-operative events. RESULTS: Three baseline risk factors (BMI, creatinine and degree of contralateral stenosis) were selected into our baseline risk model (c-statistic 0.59 [95% CI 0.54–0.65]). The model stratified absolute risk between the lowest and highest risk quintiles (5.1% vs. 12.5%). External validation in ARIC found similar predictiveness (c-statistic 0.58 [0.49–0.67]), but poor calibration across the risk spectrum. In the treatment risk model, CEA was superior to medical management across the spectrum of baseline risk and the magnitude of the treatment effect varied widely between the lowest and highest absolute risk quintiles (3.2% vs. 10.7%). CONCLUSION: Even modestly predictive risk stratification tools have the potential to meaningfully influence clinical decision making in asymptomatic carotid disease. However, our ACAS model requires target population recalibration prior to clinical application. BioMed Central 2019-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6873682/ /pubmed/31757218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1528-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Burke, James F.
Morgenstern, Lewis B.
Hayward, Rodney A.
Can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
title Can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
title_full Can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
title_fullStr Can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
title_full_unstemmed Can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
title_short Can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
title_sort can risk modelling improve treatment decisions in asymptomatic carotid stenosis?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6873682/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31757218
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-019-1528-7
work_keys_str_mv AT burkejamesf canriskmodellingimprovetreatmentdecisionsinasymptomaticcarotidstenosis
AT morgensternlewisb canriskmodellingimprovetreatmentdecisionsinasymptomaticcarotidstenosis
AT haywardrodneya canriskmodellingimprovetreatmentdecisionsinasymptomaticcarotidstenosis