Practice patterns in utilization of atherectomy and embolic protection devices in inpatient and outpatient treatment settings

The frequency of atherectomy in lower extremity arterial disease has increased substantially over the past several years, specifically in the office-based laboratory (OBL) setting, yet the efficacy compared with other interventions and the consequences of distal embolization remain unknown. Embolic...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of vascular surgery 2024-12, Vol.80 (6), p.1806-1812.e4
Hauptverfasser: Sansosti, Alexandra A., Munoz, Jose, Lazar, Andrew N., Zenilman, Ariela L., Mehta, Ambar, Aljabban, Imad, Chen, Panpan, Johnson, Adam P., Siracuse, Jeffrey J., Patel, Virendra I., Morrissey, Nicholas J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1812.e4
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1806
container_title Journal of vascular surgery
container_volume 80
creator Sansosti, Alexandra A.
Munoz, Jose
Lazar, Andrew N.
Zenilman, Ariela L.
Mehta, Ambar
Aljabban, Imad
Chen, Panpan
Johnson, Adam P.
Siracuse, Jeffrey J.
Patel, Virendra I.
Morrissey, Nicholas J.
description The frequency of atherectomy in lower extremity arterial disease has increased substantially over the past several years, specifically in the office-based laboratory (OBL) setting, yet the efficacy compared with other interventions and the consequences of distal embolization remain unknown. Embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been used at varying rates depending on physician and practice setting. Previous studies have described lesion characteristics to consider when weighing the benefits and drawbacks associated with device use. Our study focuses on the use of atherectomy and EPDs in femoropopliteal arterial disease to better characterize resource use trends and postoperative outcomes in the inpatient and OBL interventional settings. We conducted a retrospective analysis on endovascular interventions performed for femoral-popliteal occlusive disease that were entered into the Vascular Quality Initiative data registry between 2017 and 2021. A one:one greedy match, adjusted analysis based on inpatient or OBL location of procedure was used to compare the groups. Hierarchical logistical regression with selective use of principal component analysis was used to further explore the differences in EPD use and immediate postoperative outcomes. A proportional hazard model was used to demonstrate differences in reintervention rates up to 2 years postoperatively between patients who underwent atherectomy in the inpatient vs OBL treatment setting. 2849 matched pairs were inlcuded in the final analysis. In our cohort, there was 22% EPD use overall, 40% in the hospital setting and 4.4% in the OBL setting (P < .001). Among the patients with available follow-up information, OBL intervention setting increased probability of reintervention by 18% at 2 years postoperatively compared with the inpatient setting; however, there was no difference associated with EPD placement and rate of reintervention. Use of EPDs in the OBL setting compared with the hospital setting is dramatically decreased; however, no increased incidence of postoperative complications was seen compared to procedures performed in the hospital setting when controlling for patient and lesion characteristics. Patients with available follow-up data were more likely to undergo ipsilateral reintervention between 6 months and 2 years postoperatively if atherectomy was done in the OBL setting. Dedicated studies are encouraged to ensure patient safety, effective resource allocation, and long-term efficacy of OBL a
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.06.164
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3073713888</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0741521424014812</els_id><sourcerecordid>3073713888</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c235t-e7f87f237245e8dc7b8d882d9d5074665d77822b05f4b3bcc3ed0438c47b5f723</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kL1O5DAUhS3ECoaBB6BBKWkS_JfYIyqE2AUJabfYrS3HvgGPkniwnZFA2nfHYRhKKv_oO0f3fgidE1wRTJqrdbXexopiyivcVKThB2hB8EqUjcSrQ7TAgpOypoQfo5MY1xgTUktxhI6ZXHHOMV6g_3-CNskZKDY6JQhjLNxYTMn17k0n58fCd4VOzxDAJD-8Fnq0BQyt750pNsGn_D1TFra55CPsxlzlYEwfrJ_S_pkC6DTMtwgpufEpnqIfne4jnH2eS_Tv593f2_vy8fevh9ubx9JQVqcSRCdFR5mgvAZpjWillZLala3zik1TWyEkpS2uO96y1hgGFnMmDRdt3QnKluhy15snfpkgJjW4aKDv9Qh-iophwQRhUsqMkh1qgo8xQKc2wQ06vCqC1WxdrVW2rmbrCjcqW8-Zi8_6qR3AfiX2mjNwvQMgL7l1EFQ0WYkB62avynr3Tf07c_mV1w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3073713888</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Practice patterns in utilization of atherectomy and embolic protection devices in inpatient and outpatient treatment settings</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Sansosti, Alexandra A. ; Munoz, Jose ; Lazar, Andrew N. ; Zenilman, Ariela L. ; Mehta, Ambar ; Aljabban, Imad ; Chen, Panpan ; Johnson, Adam P. ; Siracuse, Jeffrey J. ; Patel, Virendra I. ; Morrissey, Nicholas J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sansosti, Alexandra A. ; Munoz, Jose ; Lazar, Andrew N. ; Zenilman, Ariela L. ; Mehta, Ambar ; Aljabban, Imad ; Chen, Panpan ; Johnson, Adam P. ; Siracuse, Jeffrey J. ; Patel, Virendra I. ; Morrissey, Nicholas J.</creatorcontrib><description>The frequency of atherectomy in lower extremity arterial disease has increased substantially over the past several years, specifically in the office-based laboratory (OBL) setting, yet the efficacy compared with other interventions and the consequences of distal embolization remain unknown. Embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been used at varying rates depending on physician and practice setting. Previous studies have described lesion characteristics to consider when weighing the benefits and drawbacks associated with device use. Our study focuses on the use of atherectomy and EPDs in femoropopliteal arterial disease to better characterize resource use trends and postoperative outcomes in the inpatient and OBL interventional settings. We conducted a retrospective analysis on endovascular interventions performed for femoral-popliteal occlusive disease that were entered into the Vascular Quality Initiative data registry between 2017 and 2021. A one:one greedy match, adjusted analysis based on inpatient or OBL location of procedure was used to compare the groups. Hierarchical logistical regression with selective use of principal component analysis was used to further explore the differences in EPD use and immediate postoperative outcomes. A proportional hazard model was used to demonstrate differences in reintervention rates up to 2 years postoperatively between patients who underwent atherectomy in the inpatient vs OBL treatment setting. 2849 matched pairs were inlcuded in the final analysis. In our cohort, there was 22% EPD use overall, 40% in the hospital setting and 4.4% in the OBL setting (P &lt; .001). Among the patients with available follow-up information, OBL intervention setting increased probability of reintervention by 18% at 2 years postoperatively compared with the inpatient setting; however, there was no difference associated with EPD placement and rate of reintervention. Use of EPDs in the OBL setting compared with the hospital setting is dramatically decreased; however, no increased incidence of postoperative complications was seen compared to procedures performed in the hospital setting when controlling for patient and lesion characteristics. Patients with available follow-up data were more likely to undergo ipsilateral reintervention between 6 months and 2 years postoperatively if atherectomy was done in the OBL setting. Dedicated studies are encouraged to ensure patient safety, effective resource allocation, and long-term efficacy of OBL atherectomy as an ever-growing number of peripheral arterial procedures are transitioned to the OBL setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0741-5214</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1097-6809</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6809</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.06.164</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38944400</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Atherectomy ; Atherectomy - adverse effects ; Embolic protection device ; Embolic Protection Devices ; Female ; Femoral Artery - surgery ; Humans ; Inpatients ; Male ; Mid-term outcomes ; Middle Aged ; Office-based laboratory ; Peripheral Arterial Disease - surgery ; Peripheral Arterial Disease - therapy ; Popliteal Artery - surgery ; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - trends ; Registries ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Factors ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of vascular surgery, 2024-12, Vol.80 (6), p.1806-1812.e4</ispartof><rights>2024 Society for Vascular Surgery</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c235t-e7f87f237245e8dc7b8d882d9d5074665d77822b05f4b3bcc3ed0438c47b5f723</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9925-9634 ; 0000-0002-3014-6372</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2024.06.164$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38944400$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sansosti, Alexandra A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munoz, Jose</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lazar, Andrew N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zenilman, Ariela L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mehta, Ambar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aljabban, Imad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Panpan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Adam P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siracuse, Jeffrey J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Virendra I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrissey, Nicholas J.</creatorcontrib><title>Practice patterns in utilization of atherectomy and embolic protection devices in inpatient and outpatient treatment settings</title><title>Journal of vascular surgery</title><addtitle>J Vasc Surg</addtitle><description>The frequency of atherectomy in lower extremity arterial disease has increased substantially over the past several years, specifically in the office-based laboratory (OBL) setting, yet the efficacy compared with other interventions and the consequences of distal embolization remain unknown. Embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been used at varying rates depending on physician and practice setting. Previous studies have described lesion characteristics to consider when weighing the benefits and drawbacks associated with device use. Our study focuses on the use of atherectomy and EPDs in femoropopliteal arterial disease to better characterize resource use trends and postoperative outcomes in the inpatient and OBL interventional settings. We conducted a retrospective analysis on endovascular interventions performed for femoral-popliteal occlusive disease that were entered into the Vascular Quality Initiative data registry between 2017 and 2021. A one:one greedy match, adjusted analysis based on inpatient or OBL location of procedure was used to compare the groups. Hierarchical logistical regression with selective use of principal component analysis was used to further explore the differences in EPD use and immediate postoperative outcomes. A proportional hazard model was used to demonstrate differences in reintervention rates up to 2 years postoperatively between patients who underwent atherectomy in the inpatient vs OBL treatment setting. 2849 matched pairs were inlcuded in the final analysis. In our cohort, there was 22% EPD use overall, 40% in the hospital setting and 4.4% in the OBL setting (P &lt; .001). Among the patients with available follow-up information, OBL intervention setting increased probability of reintervention by 18% at 2 years postoperatively compared with the inpatient setting; however, there was no difference associated with EPD placement and rate of reintervention. Use of EPDs in the OBL setting compared with the hospital setting is dramatically decreased; however, no increased incidence of postoperative complications was seen compared to procedures performed in the hospital setting when controlling for patient and lesion characteristics. Patients with available follow-up data were more likely to undergo ipsilateral reintervention between 6 months and 2 years postoperatively if atherectomy was done in the OBL setting. Dedicated studies are encouraged to ensure patient safety, effective resource allocation, and long-term efficacy of OBL atherectomy as an ever-growing number of peripheral arterial procedures are transitioned to the OBL setting.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Atherectomy</subject><subject>Atherectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Embolic protection device</subject><subject>Embolic Protection Devices</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Femoral Artery - surgery</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inpatients</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mid-term outcomes</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Office-based laboratory</subject><subject>Peripheral Arterial Disease - surgery</subject><subject>Peripheral Arterial Disease - therapy</subject><subject>Popliteal Artery - surgery</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - trends</subject><subject>Registries</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0741-5214</issn><issn>1097-6809</issn><issn>1097-6809</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kL1O5DAUhS3ECoaBB6BBKWkS_JfYIyqE2AUJabfYrS3HvgGPkniwnZFA2nfHYRhKKv_oO0f3fgidE1wRTJqrdbXexopiyivcVKThB2hB8EqUjcSrQ7TAgpOypoQfo5MY1xgTUktxhI6ZXHHOMV6g_3-CNskZKDY6JQhjLNxYTMn17k0n58fCd4VOzxDAJD-8Fnq0BQyt750pNsGn_D1TFra55CPsxlzlYEwfrJ_S_pkC6DTMtwgpufEpnqIfne4jnH2eS_Tv593f2_vy8fevh9ubx9JQVqcSRCdFR5mgvAZpjWillZLala3zik1TWyEkpS2uO96y1hgGFnMmDRdt3QnKluhy15snfpkgJjW4aKDv9Qh-iophwQRhUsqMkh1qgo8xQKc2wQ06vCqC1WxdrVW2rmbrCjcqW8-Zi8_6qR3AfiX2mjNwvQMgL7l1EFQ0WYkB62avynr3Tf07c_mV1w</recordid><startdate>202412</startdate><enddate>202412</enddate><creator>Sansosti, Alexandra A.</creator><creator>Munoz, Jose</creator><creator>Lazar, Andrew N.</creator><creator>Zenilman, Ariela L.</creator><creator>Mehta, Ambar</creator><creator>Aljabban, Imad</creator><creator>Chen, Panpan</creator><creator>Johnson, Adam P.</creator><creator>Siracuse, Jeffrey J.</creator><creator>Patel, Virendra I.</creator><creator>Morrissey, Nicholas J.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9925-9634</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3014-6372</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202412</creationdate><title>Practice patterns in utilization of atherectomy and embolic protection devices in inpatient and outpatient treatment settings</title><author>Sansosti, Alexandra A. ; Munoz, Jose ; Lazar, Andrew N. ; Zenilman, Ariela L. ; Mehta, Ambar ; Aljabban, Imad ; Chen, Panpan ; Johnson, Adam P. ; Siracuse, Jeffrey J. ; Patel, Virendra I. ; Morrissey, Nicholas J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c235t-e7f87f237245e8dc7b8d882d9d5074665d77822b05f4b3bcc3ed0438c47b5f723</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Atherectomy</topic><topic>Atherectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Embolic protection device</topic><topic>Embolic Protection Devices</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Femoral Artery - surgery</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inpatients</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mid-term outcomes</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Office-based laboratory</topic><topic>Peripheral Arterial Disease - surgery</topic><topic>Peripheral Arterial Disease - therapy</topic><topic>Popliteal Artery - surgery</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians' - trends</topic><topic>Registries</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sansosti, Alexandra A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munoz, Jose</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lazar, Andrew N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zenilman, Ariela L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mehta, Ambar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aljabban, Imad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Panpan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Adam P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siracuse, Jeffrey J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Virendra I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morrissey, Nicholas J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of vascular surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sansosti, Alexandra A.</au><au>Munoz, Jose</au><au>Lazar, Andrew N.</au><au>Zenilman, Ariela L.</au><au>Mehta, Ambar</au><au>Aljabban, Imad</au><au>Chen, Panpan</au><au>Johnson, Adam P.</au><au>Siracuse, Jeffrey J.</au><au>Patel, Virendra I.</au><au>Morrissey, Nicholas J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Practice patterns in utilization of atherectomy and embolic protection devices in inpatient and outpatient treatment settings</atitle><jtitle>Journal of vascular surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Vasc Surg</addtitle><date>2024-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>80</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1806</spage><epage>1812.e4</epage><pages>1806-1812.e4</pages><issn>0741-5214</issn><issn>1097-6809</issn><eissn>1097-6809</eissn><abstract>The frequency of atherectomy in lower extremity arterial disease has increased substantially over the past several years, specifically in the office-based laboratory (OBL) setting, yet the efficacy compared with other interventions and the consequences of distal embolization remain unknown. Embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been used at varying rates depending on physician and practice setting. Previous studies have described lesion characteristics to consider when weighing the benefits and drawbacks associated with device use. Our study focuses on the use of atherectomy and EPDs in femoropopliteal arterial disease to better characterize resource use trends and postoperative outcomes in the inpatient and OBL interventional settings. We conducted a retrospective analysis on endovascular interventions performed for femoral-popliteal occlusive disease that were entered into the Vascular Quality Initiative data registry between 2017 and 2021. A one:one greedy match, adjusted analysis based on inpatient or OBL location of procedure was used to compare the groups. Hierarchical logistical regression with selective use of principal component analysis was used to further explore the differences in EPD use and immediate postoperative outcomes. A proportional hazard model was used to demonstrate differences in reintervention rates up to 2 years postoperatively between patients who underwent atherectomy in the inpatient vs OBL treatment setting. 2849 matched pairs were inlcuded in the final analysis. In our cohort, there was 22% EPD use overall, 40% in the hospital setting and 4.4% in the OBL setting (P &lt; .001). Among the patients with available follow-up information, OBL intervention setting increased probability of reintervention by 18% at 2 years postoperatively compared with the inpatient setting; however, there was no difference associated with EPD placement and rate of reintervention. Use of EPDs in the OBL setting compared with the hospital setting is dramatically decreased; however, no increased incidence of postoperative complications was seen compared to procedures performed in the hospital setting when controlling for patient and lesion characteristics. Patients with available follow-up data were more likely to undergo ipsilateral reintervention between 6 months and 2 years postoperatively if atherectomy was done in the OBL setting. Dedicated studies are encouraged to ensure patient safety, effective resource allocation, and long-term efficacy of OBL atherectomy as an ever-growing number of peripheral arterial procedures are transitioned to the OBL setting.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>38944400</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jvs.2024.06.164</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9925-9634</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3014-6372</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0741-5214
ispartof Journal of vascular surgery, 2024-12, Vol.80 (6), p.1806-1812.e4
issn 0741-5214
1097-6809
1097-6809
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3073713888
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Atherectomy
Atherectomy - adverse effects
Embolic protection device
Embolic Protection Devices
Female
Femoral Artery - surgery
Humans
Inpatients
Male
Mid-term outcomes
Middle Aged
Office-based laboratory
Peripheral Arterial Disease - surgery
Peripheral Arterial Disease - therapy
Popliteal Artery - surgery
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - trends
Registries
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
United States
title Practice patterns in utilization of atherectomy and embolic protection devices in inpatient and outpatient treatment settings
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T19%3A06%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Practice%20patterns%20in%20utilization%20of%20atherectomy%20and%20embolic%20protection%20devices%20in%20inpatient%20and%20outpatient%20treatment%20settings&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20vascular%20surgery&rft.au=Sansosti,%20Alexandra%20A.&rft.date=2024-12&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1806&rft.epage=1812.e4&rft.pages=1806-1812.e4&rft.issn=0741-5214&rft.eissn=1097-6809&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jvs.2024.06.164&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3073713888%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3073713888&rft_id=info:pmid/38944400&rft_els_id=S0741521424014812&rfr_iscdi=true