Large regional variation in cardiac closure procedures to prevent ischemic stroke in Switzerland a population-based small area analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) or the left atrial appendage (LAA) are controversial procedures to prevent stroke but often used in clinical practice. We assessed the regional variation of these interventions and explored potential determinants of such a variation. METHODS: We conducted a population-based analysis using patient discharge data from all Swiss hospitals from 2013-2018. We derived hospital service areas (HSAs) using patient flows for PFO and LAA closure. We calculated age-standardized mean procedure rates and variation indices (extremal quotient [EQ] and systematic component of variation [SCV]). SCV values >5.4 indicate a high and >10 a very high variation. Because the evidence on the efficacy of PFO closure may differ in patients aged <60 years and ≥60 years, age-stratified analyses were performed. We assessed the influence of potential determinants of variation using multilevel regression models with incremental adjustment for demographics, cultural/socioeconomic, health, and supply factors. RESULTS: Overall, 2574 PFO and 2081 LAA closures from 10 HSAs were analyzed. The fully adjusted PFO and LAA closure rates varied from 3 to 8 and from 1 to 9 procedures per 100,000 persons per year across HSAs, respectively. The regional variation was high with respect to overall PFO closures (EQ 3.0, SCV 8.3) and very high in patients aged ≥60 years (EQ 4.0, SCV 12.3). The variation in LAA closures was very high (EQ 16.2, SCV 32.1). In multivariate analysis, women had a 28% lower PFO and a 59% lower LAA closure rate than men. French/Italian language areas had a 63% lower LAA closure rate than Swiss German speaking regions and areas with a higher proportion of privately insured patients had a 86% higher LAA closure rate. After full adjustment, 44.2% of the variance in PFO closure and 30.3% in LAA closure remained unexplained. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high to very high regional variation in PFO closure and LAA closure rates within Switzerland. Several factors, including sex, language area, and insurance status, were associated with procedure rates. Overall, 30-45% of the regional procedure variation remained unexplained and most probably represents differing physician practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".