Carotid artery stenosis: Wide variability in reporting formats - A review of 127 veterans affairs medical centers

Eric M. Cheng, Dawn M. Bravata, Suzie El-Saden, Stefanie D. Vassar, Susan Ofner, Linda S. Williams, Salomeh Keyhani

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether radiology reports describe clinically significant carotid arterial stenosis in a consistent format that is actionable by ordering clinicians. Materials and Methods: This study was HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was waived. Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective chart review, which included radiology reports of carotid artery imaging for patients hospitalized with ischemic stroke at 127 Veterans Affairs medical centers in 2006-2007. "Clinically significant results" were defined as results with at least 50% stenosis or at least moderate stenosis, excluding complete occlusion. How often clinically significant results were reported as an exact percentage stenosis (such as 60%), range (such as 50%-69%), or category (such as moderate) was determined. Among results reported as a range, how often the range bracketed clinical thresholds of 50% and 70% (typically used to determine appropriateness of carotid arterial revascularization) was determined. Results: Among 2675 patients, there were 6618 carotid imaging results, of which 1015 (15%) were considered clinically significant. Among 695 clinically significant results at ultrasonography (US), 348 (50%) were described as a range, and another 314 (45%) were reported as an exact percentage stenosis. Among the 348 clinically significant US results reported as a range, 259 (74%) bracketed the thresholds of 50% or 70%. For magnetic resonance angiographic results, 48% (106 of 221) qualitatively described clinically significant results as a category, 38% (84 of 221) as an exact percentage stenosis, and 14% (31 of 221) as a range. Conclusion: In this national health care system, the manner in which clinically significant carotid arterial stenosis was reported varied widely.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)289-294
Number of pages6
JournalRadiology
Volume266
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2013

Fingerprint

Carotid Stenosis
Veterans
Pathologic Constriction
Radiology
Ultrasonography
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Research Ethics Committees
Informed Consent
Carotid Arteries
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Stroke
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Carotid artery stenosis : Wide variability in reporting formats - A review of 127 veterans affairs medical centers. / Cheng, Eric M.; Bravata, Dawn M.; El-Saden, Suzie; Vassar, Stefanie D.; Ofner, Susan; Williams, Linda S.; Keyhani, Salomeh.

In: Radiology, Vol. 266, No. 1, 01.01.2013, p. 289-294.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Cheng, Eric M. ; Bravata, Dawn M. ; El-Saden, Suzie ; Vassar, Stefanie D. ; Ofner, Susan ; Williams, Linda S. ; Keyhani, Salomeh. / Carotid artery stenosis : Wide variability in reporting formats - A review of 127 veterans affairs medical centers. In: Radiology. 2013 ; Vol. 266, No. 1. pp. 289-294.
@article{c3e2ea39e6064edd9d58eeb05f847942,
title = "Carotid artery stenosis: Wide variability in reporting formats - A review of 127 veterans affairs medical centers",
abstract = "Purpose: To determine whether radiology reports describe clinically significant carotid arterial stenosis in a consistent format that is actionable by ordering clinicians. Materials and Methods: This study was HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was waived. Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective chart review, which included radiology reports of carotid artery imaging for patients hospitalized with ischemic stroke at 127 Veterans Affairs medical centers in 2006-2007. {"}Clinically significant results{"} were defined as results with at least 50{\%} stenosis or at least moderate stenosis, excluding complete occlusion. How often clinically significant results were reported as an exact percentage stenosis (such as 60{\%}), range (such as 50{\%}-69{\%}), or category (such as moderate) was determined. Among results reported as a range, how often the range bracketed clinical thresholds of 50{\%} and 70{\%} (typically used to determine appropriateness of carotid arterial revascularization) was determined. Results: Among 2675 patients, there were 6618 carotid imaging results, of which 1015 (15{\%}) were considered clinically significant. Among 695 clinically significant results at ultrasonography (US), 348 (50{\%}) were described as a range, and another 314 (45{\%}) were reported as an exact percentage stenosis. Among the 348 clinically significant US results reported as a range, 259 (74{\%}) bracketed the thresholds of 50{\%} or 70{\%}. For magnetic resonance angiographic results, 48{\%} (106 of 221) qualitatively described clinically significant results as a category, 38{\%} (84 of 221) as an exact percentage stenosis, and 14{\%} (31 of 221) as a range. Conclusion: In this national health care system, the manner in which clinically significant carotid arterial stenosis was reported varied widely.",
author = "Cheng, {Eric M.} and Bravata, {Dawn M.} and Suzie El-Saden and Vassar, {Stefanie D.} and Susan Ofner and Williams, {Linda S.} and Salomeh Keyhani",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1148/radiol.12120453",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "266",
pages = "289--294",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Carotid artery stenosis

T2 - Wide variability in reporting formats - A review of 127 veterans affairs medical centers

AU - Cheng, Eric M.

AU - Bravata, Dawn M.

AU - El-Saden, Suzie

AU - Vassar, Stefanie D.

AU - Ofner, Susan

AU - Williams, Linda S.

AU - Keyhani, Salomeh

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To determine whether radiology reports describe clinically significant carotid arterial stenosis in a consistent format that is actionable by ordering clinicians. Materials and Methods: This study was HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was waived. Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective chart review, which included radiology reports of carotid artery imaging for patients hospitalized with ischemic stroke at 127 Veterans Affairs medical centers in 2006-2007. "Clinically significant results" were defined as results with at least 50% stenosis or at least moderate stenosis, excluding complete occlusion. How often clinically significant results were reported as an exact percentage stenosis (such as 60%), range (such as 50%-69%), or category (such as moderate) was determined. Among results reported as a range, how often the range bracketed clinical thresholds of 50% and 70% (typically used to determine appropriateness of carotid arterial revascularization) was determined. Results: Among 2675 patients, there were 6618 carotid imaging results, of which 1015 (15%) were considered clinically significant. Among 695 clinically significant results at ultrasonography (US), 348 (50%) were described as a range, and another 314 (45%) were reported as an exact percentage stenosis. Among the 348 clinically significant US results reported as a range, 259 (74%) bracketed the thresholds of 50% or 70%. For magnetic resonance angiographic results, 48% (106 of 221) qualitatively described clinically significant results as a category, 38% (84 of 221) as an exact percentage stenosis, and 14% (31 of 221) as a range. Conclusion: In this national health care system, the manner in which clinically significant carotid arterial stenosis was reported varied widely.

AB - Purpose: To determine whether radiology reports describe clinically significant carotid arterial stenosis in a consistent format that is actionable by ordering clinicians. Materials and Methods: This study was HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was waived. Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective chart review, which included radiology reports of carotid artery imaging for patients hospitalized with ischemic stroke at 127 Veterans Affairs medical centers in 2006-2007. "Clinically significant results" were defined as results with at least 50% stenosis or at least moderate stenosis, excluding complete occlusion. How often clinically significant results were reported as an exact percentage stenosis (such as 60%), range (such as 50%-69%), or category (such as moderate) was determined. Among results reported as a range, how often the range bracketed clinical thresholds of 50% and 70% (typically used to determine appropriateness of carotid arterial revascularization) was determined. Results: Among 2675 patients, there were 6618 carotid imaging results, of which 1015 (15%) were considered clinically significant. Among 695 clinically significant results at ultrasonography (US), 348 (50%) were described as a range, and another 314 (45%) were reported as an exact percentage stenosis. Among the 348 clinically significant US results reported as a range, 259 (74%) bracketed the thresholds of 50% or 70%. For magnetic resonance angiographic results, 48% (106 of 221) qualitatively described clinically significant results as a category, 38% (84 of 221) as an exact percentage stenosis, and 14% (31 of 221) as a range. Conclusion: In this national health care system, the manner in which clinically significant carotid arterial stenosis was reported varied widely.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871681140&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871681140&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1148/radiol.12120453

DO - 10.1148/radiol.12120453

M3 - Review article

C2 - 23143022

AN - SCOPUS:84871681140

VL - 266

SP - 289

EP - 294

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 1

ER -