↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy Among Medicare Beneficiaries

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy Among Medicare Beneficiaries
Published in
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes, April 2016
DOI 10.1161/circoutcomes.115.002336
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica J Jalbert, Louis L Nguyen, Marie D Gerhard-Herman, Hiraku Kumamaru, Chih-Ying Chen, Lauren A Williams, Jun Liu, Andrew T Rothman, Michael R Jaff, John D Seeger, James F Benenati, Peter A Schneider, Herbert D Aronow, Joseph A Johnston, Thomas G Brott, Thomas T Tsai, Christopher J White, Soko Setoguchi

Abstract

Effectiveness of carotid artery stenting (CAS) relative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among Medicare patients has not been established. We compared effectiveness of CAS versus CEA among Medicare beneficiaries. We linked Medicare data (2000-2009) to the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry (2005-2008) and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's (NCDR) Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry (2006-2008/2009). Medicare patients were followed up from procedure date until death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, periprocedural myocardial infarction, or a composite end point for these outcomes. We derived high-dimensional propensity scores using registry and Medicare data to control for patient factors and adjusted for provider factors in a Cox regression model comparing CAS with CEA. Among 5254 Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry (1999 CAS; 3255 CEA) and 4055 Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry (2824 CAS; 1231 CEA) Medicare patients, CAS patients had a higher comorbidity burden and were more likely to be at high surgical risk (Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry: 96.7% versus 44.5%; Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry: 71.3% versus 44.7%). Unadjusted outcome risks were higher for CAS. Mortality risks remained elevated for CAS after adjusting for patient-level factors (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.46). After further adjustment for provider factors, differences between CAS and CEA were attenuated or no longer present (hazard ratio for mortality, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.37). Performance was comparable across subgroups defined by sex and degree of carotid stenosis, but there was a nonsignificant trend suggesting a higher risk of adverse outcomes in older (>80) and symptomatic patients undergoing CAS. Outcomes after CAS and CEA among Medicare beneficiaries were comparable after adjusting for both patient- and provider-level factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 19%
Researcher 8 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#1,870,494
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
#549
of 1,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,136
of 312,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
#8
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.