- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Rofagha, Soraya"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Common Reasons That Asymptomatic Patients Who Are 65 Years and Older Receive Carotid Imaging(The JAMA Network, 2016-05-01) Keyhani, Salomeh; Cheng, Eric M.; Naseri, Ayman; Halm, Ethan A.; Williams, Linda S.; Johanning, Jason; Madden, Erin; Rofagha, Soraya; Woodbridge, Alexandra; Abraham, Ann; Ahn, Rosa; Saba, Susan; Eilkhani, Elnaz; Hebert, Paul; Bravata, Dawn M.; Department of Neurology, IU School of MedicineIMPORTANCE: National guidelines do not agree on the role of carotid screening in asymptomatic patients (ie, patients who have not had a stroke or transient ischemic attack). Recently, several physician organizations participating in the Choosing Wisely campaign have identified carotid imaging in selected asymptomatic populations as being of low value. However, the majority of patients who are evaluated for carotid stenosis and subsequently revascularized are asymptomatic. OBJECTIVE: To better understand why asymptomatic patients who undergo revascularization receive initial carotid imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 4127 Veterans Health Administration patients 65 years and older undergoing carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis between 2005 and 2009. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Indications for carotid ultrasounds were extracted using trained abstractors. Frequency of indications and appropriateness of initial carotid ultrasound imaging for patients within each rating category after the intervention were reported. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of this cohort of 4127 patients was 73.6 (5.9) years; 4014 (98.8%) were male. Overall, there were 5226 indications for 4063 carotid ultrasounds. The most common indications listed were carotid bruit (1578 [30.2% of indications]) and follow-up for carotid disease (stenosis/history of carotid disease) in patients who had previously documented carotid stenosis (1087 [20.8% of indications]). Multiple vascular risk factors were the next most common indication listed. Rates of appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate imaging were 5.4% (227 indications), 83.4% (3387 indications), and 11.3% (458 indications), respectively. Among the most common inappropriate indications were dizziness/vertigo and syncope. Among the 4063 patients, 3373 (83.0%) received a carotid endarterectomy. Overall, 663 procedures were performed in patients 80 years and older. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Carotid bruit and follow-up for carotid disease accounted for approximately half of all indications provided by physicians for carotid testing. Strong consideration should be given to improving the evidence base around carotid testing, especially around monitoring stenosis over long periods and evaluating carotid bruits. Targeting carotid ultrasound ordering with decision support tools may also be an important step in reducing use of low-value imaging.Item Four-Year Visual Outcomes in the Protocol W Randomized Trial of Intravitreous Aflibercept for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy(American Medical Association, 2023) Maturi, Raj K.; Glassman, Adam R.; Josic, Kristin; Baker, Carl W.; Gerstenblith, Adam T.; Jampol, Lee M.; Meleth, Annal; Martin, Daniel F.; Melia, Michele; Punjabi, Omar S.; Rofagha, Soraya; Salehi-Had, Hani; Stockdale, Cynthia R.; Sun, Jennifer K.; DRCR Retina Network; Ophthalmology, School of MedicineImportance: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections in eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) reduce development of vision-threatening complications from diabetes over at least 2 years, but whether this treatment has a longer-term benefit on visual acuity is unknown. Objective: To compare the primary 4-year outcomes of visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR treated with intravitreal aflibercept compared with sham. The primary 2-year analysis of this study has been reported. Design, setting, and participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 64 clinical sites in the US and Canada from January 2016 to March 2018, enrolling 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] severity level 43-53; range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) without CI-DME. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg aflibercept (n = 200) or sham (n = 199). Eight injections were administered at defined intervals through 2 years, continuing quarterly through 4 years unless the eye improved to mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was given in both groups to treat development of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or CI-DME with vision loss. Main outcomes and measures: Development of PDR or CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or ≥5 letters at 2 consecutive visits) and change in visual acuity (best corrected ETDRS letter score) from baseline to 4 years. Results: Among participants (mean age 56 years; 42.4% female; 5% Asian, 15% Black, 32% Hispanic, 45% White), the 4-year cumulative probability of developing PDR or CI-DME with vision loss was 33.9% with aflibercept vs 56.9% with sham (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [97.5% CI, 0.28 to 0.57]; P < .001). The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 4 years was -2.7 (6.5) letters with aflibercept and -2.4 (5.8) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, -0.5 letters [97.5% CI, -2.3 to 1.3]; P = .52). Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event rates were 9.9% (7 of 71) in bilateral participants, 10.9% (14 of 129) in unilateral aflibercept participants, and 7.8% (10 of 128) in unilateral sham participants. Conclusions and relevance: Among patients with NPDR but without CI-DME at 4 years treatment with aflibercept vs sham, initiating aflibercept treatment only if vision-threatening complications developed, resulted in statistically significant anatomic improvement but no improvement in visual acuity. Aflibercept as a preventive strategy, as used in this trial, may not be generally warranted for patients with NPDR without CI-DME.