Santiago Callegari, Kim G Smolderen, Jacob Cleman, Carlos Mena-Hurtado, Gaëlle Romain
{"title":"通过竞争风险分析估算下肢外周动脉疾病的截肢发生率和风险。","authors":"Santiago Callegari, Kim G Smolderen, Jacob Cleman, Carlos Mena-Hurtado, Gaëlle Romain","doi":"10.1177/1358863X241268727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Patients with peripheral artery disease face high amputation and mortality risk. When assessing vascular outcomes, consideration of mortality as a competing risk is not routine. We hypothesize standard time-to-event methods will overestimate major amputation risk in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and non-CLTI. <b>Methods</b>: Patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention from 2017 to 2018 were abstracted from the Vascular Quality Initiative registry and stratified by mean age (⩾ 75 vs < 75 years). Mortality and amputation data were obtained from Medicare claims. The 2-year cumulative incidence function (CIF) and risk of major amputation from standard time-to-event analysis (1 - Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression) were compared with competing risk analysis (Aalen-Johansen and Fine-Gray model) in CLTI and non-CLTI. <b>Results</b>: A total of 7273 patients with CLTI and 5095 with non-CLTI were included. At 2-year follow up, 13.1% of patients underwent major amputation and 33.4% died without major amputation in the CLTI cohort; 1.3% and 10.7%, respectively, in the non-CLTI cohort. In CLTI, standard time-to-event analysis overestimated the 2-year CIF of major amputation by 20.5% and 13.7%, respectively, in patients ⩾ 75 and < 75 years old compared with competing risk analysis. The standard Cox regression overestimated adjusted 2-year major amputation risk in patients ⩾ 75 versus < 75 years old by 7.0%. In non-CLTI, the CIF was overestimated by 7.1% in patients ⩾ 75 years, and the adjusted risk was overestimated by 5.1% compared with competing risk analysis. <b>Conclusions</b>: Standard time-to-event analysis overestimates the incidence and risk of major amputation, especially in CLTI. Competing risk analyses are alternative approaches to estimate accurately amputation risk in vascular outcomes research.</p>","PeriodicalId":23604,"journal":{"name":"Vascular Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"496-506"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11575932/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Competing risk analysis to estimate amputation incidence and risk in lower-extremity peripheral artery disease.\",\"authors\":\"Santiago Callegari, Kim G Smolderen, Jacob Cleman, Carlos Mena-Hurtado, Gaëlle Romain\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1358863X241268727\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Patients with peripheral artery disease face high amputation and mortality risk. When assessing vascular outcomes, consideration of mortality as a competing risk is not routine. We hypothesize standard time-to-event methods will overestimate major amputation risk in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and non-CLTI. <b>Methods</b>: Patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention from 2017 to 2018 were abstracted from the Vascular Quality Initiative registry and stratified by mean age (⩾ 75 vs < 75 years). Mortality and amputation data were obtained from Medicare claims. The 2-year cumulative incidence function (CIF) and risk of major amputation from standard time-to-event analysis (1 - Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression) were compared with competing risk analysis (Aalen-Johansen and Fine-Gray model) in CLTI and non-CLTI. <b>Results</b>: A total of 7273 patients with CLTI and 5095 with non-CLTI were included. At 2-year follow up, 13.1% of patients underwent major amputation and 33.4% died without major amputation in the CLTI cohort; 1.3% and 10.7%, respectively, in the non-CLTI cohort. In CLTI, standard time-to-event analysis overestimated the 2-year CIF of major amputation by 20.5% and 13.7%, respectively, in patients ⩾ 75 and < 75 years old compared with competing risk analysis. The standard Cox regression overestimated adjusted 2-year major amputation risk in patients ⩾ 75 versus < 75 years old by 7.0%. In non-CLTI, the CIF was overestimated by 7.1% in patients ⩾ 75 years, and the adjusted risk was overestimated by 5.1% compared with competing risk analysis. <b>Conclusions</b>: Standard time-to-event analysis overestimates the incidence and risk of major amputation, especially in CLTI. Competing risk analyses are alternative approaches to estimate accurately amputation risk in vascular outcomes research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vascular Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"496-506\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11575932/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1358863X241268727\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1358863X241268727","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Competing risk analysis to estimate amputation incidence and risk in lower-extremity peripheral artery disease.
Background: Patients with peripheral artery disease face high amputation and mortality risk. When assessing vascular outcomes, consideration of mortality as a competing risk is not routine. We hypothesize standard time-to-event methods will overestimate major amputation risk in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and non-CLTI. Methods: Patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention from 2017 to 2018 were abstracted from the Vascular Quality Initiative registry and stratified by mean age (⩾ 75 vs < 75 years). Mortality and amputation data were obtained from Medicare claims. The 2-year cumulative incidence function (CIF) and risk of major amputation from standard time-to-event analysis (1 - Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression) were compared with competing risk analysis (Aalen-Johansen and Fine-Gray model) in CLTI and non-CLTI. Results: A total of 7273 patients with CLTI and 5095 with non-CLTI were included. At 2-year follow up, 13.1% of patients underwent major amputation and 33.4% died without major amputation in the CLTI cohort; 1.3% and 10.7%, respectively, in the non-CLTI cohort. In CLTI, standard time-to-event analysis overestimated the 2-year CIF of major amputation by 20.5% and 13.7%, respectively, in patients ⩾ 75 and < 75 years old compared with competing risk analysis. The standard Cox regression overestimated adjusted 2-year major amputation risk in patients ⩾ 75 versus < 75 years old by 7.0%. In non-CLTI, the CIF was overestimated by 7.1% in patients ⩾ 75 years, and the adjusted risk was overestimated by 5.1% compared with competing risk analysis. Conclusions: Standard time-to-event analysis overestimates the incidence and risk of major amputation, especially in CLTI. Competing risk analyses are alternative approaches to estimate accurately amputation risk in vascular outcomes research.
期刊介绍:
The premier, ISI-ranked journal of vascular medicine. Integrates the latest research in vascular biology with advancements for the practice of vascular medicine and vascular surgery. It features original research and reviews on vascular biology, epidemiology, diagnosis, medical treatment and interventions for vascular disease. A member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)