- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Hoggatt, Katherine"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Stenting to Medical Therapy Among Patients With Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis(Wolters Kluwer, 2022) Keyhani, Salomeh; Cheng, Eric M.; Hoggatt, Katherine; Austin, Peter C.; Madden, Erin; Hebert, Paul L.; Halm, Ethan A.; Naseri, Ayman; Johanning, Jason; Abraham, Ann; Bravata, Dawn M.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground: No completed trials have compared carotid artery stenting (CAS) to medical therapy (MT). We examined the effectiveness of CAS compared with MT in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 219 979 Veterans ≥65 years who received carotid imaging for asymptomatic carotid stenosis between 2005 and 2009 in the US Veterans Health Administration. We constructed a sample of patients who received MT (n=2509) and comparable patients who received CAS (n=551) and followed them for 5 years. Using target trial methodology, we computed weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and estimated the risk of fatal and nonfatal stroke in each group over 5 years of follow-up. We also estimated the cumulative incidence functions for fatal and nonfatal stroke accounting for nonstroke deaths as competing risks. Results: Five hundred fifty-one patients received CAS, and 2509 patients received MT. The observed rate of stroke or death (perioperative complications) within 30 days in the CAS arm was 2.2%. Using the target trial methodology, the 5-year risk of fatal and nonfatal stroke was similar among patients assigned to CAS (6.9%) compared with patients assigned to MT (7.1%; risk difference, -0.1% [95% CI, -2.6% to 2.7%]). In an analysis that incorporated the competing risk of death, the risk difference between the two arms remained nonsignificant (risk difference, -1.5% [95% CI, -3.0% to 0.3%]). Conclusions: In this sample of older male adults, we found no difference between MT and CAS in the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Future studies in other settings are needed to confirm these findings.Item Development and field testing of primary care screening tools for harms of long-term opioid therapy continuation and tapering to discontinuation: a study protocol(BMJ Publishing, 2021-10-07) Timko, Christine; Kroenke, Kurt; Nevedal, Andrea; Lor, Mai Chee; Oliva, Elizabeth; Drexler, Karen; Sandbrink, Friedhelm; Hoggatt, Katherine; Medicine, School of MedicineIntroduction: Despite calls for screening tools to help providers monitor long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) harms, and identify patients likely to experience harms of discontinuation, such screening tools do not yet exist. Current assessment tools are infeasible to use routinely in primary care and focus mainly on behaviours suggestive of opioid use disorder to the exclusion of other potential harms. This paper describes a study protocol to develop two screening tools that comprise one integrated instrument, Screen to Evaluate and Treat (SET). SET1 will indicate if LTOT may be harmful to continue (yes or no), and SET2 will indicate if tapering to discontinue opioids may be harmful to initiate (yes or no). Patients receiving LTOT who screen positive on the SET tools should receive subsequent additional assessment. SET will give providers methods that are feasible to implement routinely to facilitate more intensive and comprehensive monitoring of patients on LTOT and decision-making about discontinuation. Methods and analysis: We will develop the screening tools, SET1 and SET2, concurrently. Tool development will be done in stages: (1) comprehensive literature searches to yield an initial item pool for domains covered by each screening tool; (2) qualitative item analyses using interviews, expert review and cognitive interviewing, with subsequent item revision, to yield draft versions of each tool; and (3) field testing of the draft screening tools to assess internal consistency, test-retest reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Boards of Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco for the VA Palo Alto Health Care System, and the VA San Francisco Healthcare System, respectively. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations at research conferences.