Literature DB >> 15942567

Procedure rates and outcomes of coronary revascularization procedures in California and New York.

Joseph S Carey1, Beate Danielsen, Jeffrey P Gold, Stephen J Rossiter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Background data were obtained on all California hospitals performing coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures and compared with reports published by the state of New York to develop a collaborative quality improvement program for cardiac surgery programs.
METHODS: The Patient Discharge Database of the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development was queried for the years 1999-2001. In-hospital mortality and risk factors for coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention were obtained by using demographic data and International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification procedure and diagnosis codes. Risk models were developed by means of logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Overall coronary artery bypass grafting mortality was 33% higher and percutaneous coronary intervention mortality was twice as high in California compared with that in New York. Procedural volume (per unit population) was higher in New York. In high-volume California hospitals (>300 procedures per year), coronary artery bypass grafting mortality was similar (California, 2.42%; New York, 2.25%). Excess coronary artery bypass grafting mortality (>4.0%) occurred only in low-volume programs. Risk adjustment did not change the volume effect for coronary artery bypass grafting. No volume effect was noted for risk-adjusted percutaneous coronary intervention mortality. There were no obvious differences in risk factors between California and New York. Programs performing relatively fewer coronary artery bypass grafting procedures compared with percutaneous coronary interventions were found to have significantly higher coronary artery bypass grafting mortality after adjusting for volume effects. Percutaneous coronary intervention volume is increasing and coronary artery bypass grafting volume is decreasing in both California and New York.
CONCLUSIONS: Excess coronary artery bypass grafting mortality in California is related to the large number of low-volume programs. Excess percutaneous coronary intervention mortality might be related to case selection or timing of intervention. A relationship between percutaneous coronary intervention volume and coronary artery bypass grafting mortality is suggested in which increasing percutaneous coronary intervention volume relative to coronary artery bypass grafting volume might have the effect of shifting patients with undefined higher risk characteristics to coronary artery bypass grafting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15942567     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.12.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  6 in total

Review 1.  Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Relationship Between Procedural Volume and Outcomes.

Authors:  Apurva O Badheka; Sidakpal S Panaich; Shilpkumar Arora; Nilay Patel; Nileshkumar J Patel; Chirag Savani; Abhishek Deshmukh; Mauricio G Cohen
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.931

2.  Hospital volume of throughput and periprocedural and medium-term adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention: retrospective cohort study of all 17,417 procedures undertaken in Scotland, 1997-2003.

Authors:  K R Burton; R Slack; K G Oldroyd; A C H Pell; A D Flapan; I R Starkey; H Eteiba; K P Jennings; R J Northcote; W Stewart Hillis; J P Pell
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2006-05-18       Impact factor: 5.994

3.  Case volume, quality of care, and care efficiency in coronary artery bypass surgery.

Authors:  Andrew D Auerbach; Joan F Hilton; Judith Maselli; Penelope S Pekow; Michael B Rothberg; Peter K Lindenauer
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-07-26

4.  Shop for quality or volume? Volume, quality, and outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery.

Authors:  Andrew D Auerbach; Joan F Hilton; Judith Maselli; Penelope S Pekow; Michael B Rothberg; Peter K Lindenauer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan.

Authors:  Thomas F Boyden; Karen E Joynt; Lisa McCoy; Megan L Neely; Matthew A Cavender; Simon Dixon; Frederick A Masoudi; Eric Peterson; Sunil V Rao; Hitinder S Gurm
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Relation to the Institutional Volume of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

Authors:  Shun Kohsaka; Hiraku Kumamaru; Taku Inohara; Tetsuya Amano; Takashi Akasaka; Hiroaki Miyata; Noboru Motomura; Masato Nakamura
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-04-27       Impact factor: 4.241

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.