OBJECTIVE: To determine whether drug-eluting stent (DES) use varies among Scottish hospitals, and the extent to which any variations are explained by differences between operators, patients and lesions. METHODS: Multi-level analysis of consecutive patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between April 2005 and March 2006 in Scotland, using the Scottish Coronary Revascularization Registry. RESULTS: A total of 38 operators performed 5967 PCI procedures on 8489 lesions. Crude level of DES use was 47.6%, and the results varied among hospitals (range 30.6-61.8%, chi(2) = 341.6, P < 0.0001). There was significant between-operator variation in the null model. This was attenuated by the addition of hospital as a fixed effect. Nonetheless, the final model demonstrated significant between-operator variability [sigma(2) = 0.486 (0.249-0.971)] and between-hospital variation, after case-mix adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Within Scotland, marked variation existed among hospitals in the use of DES. Operator was the most important factor at patient level, and hospital of treatment, rather than case-mix, was the most important modifier of between-operator variation. Patient selection for DES is complex and may contribute to much of the variations demonstrated. Consensus criteria would provide more detail than is included in current guidance, may aid decision-making for individual patients, reduce opportunity costs and ensure equity of access.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether drug-eluting stent (DES) use varies among Scottish hospitals, and the extent to which any variations are explained by differences between operators, patients and lesions. METHODS: Multi-level analysis of consecutive patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between April 2005 and March 2006 in Scotland, using the Scottish Coronary Revascularization Registry. RESULTS: A total of 38 operators performed 5967 PCI procedures on 8489 lesions. Crude level of DES use was 47.6%, and the results varied among hospitals (range 30.6-61.8%, chi(2) = 341.6, P < 0.0001). There was significant between-operator variation in the null model. This was attenuated by the addition of hospital as a fixed effect. Nonetheless, the final model demonstrated significant between-operator variability [sigma(2) = 0.486 (0.249-0.971)] and between-hospital variation, after case-mix adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Within Scotland, marked variation existed among hospitals in the use of DES. Operator was the most important factor at patient level, and hospital of treatment, rather than case-mix, was the most important modifier of between-operator variation. Patient selection for DES is complex and may contribute to much of the variations demonstrated. Consensus criteria would provide more detail than is included in current guidance, may aid decision-making for individual patients, reduce opportunity costs and ensure equity of access.
Authors: Ali Shafiq; Kensey Gosch; Amit P Amin; Henry H Ting; John A Spertus; Adam C Salisbury Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: L T Burgers; E A McClellan; I E Hoefer; G Pasterkamp; J W Jukema; S Horsman; N H J Pijls; J Waltenberger; M A Hillaert; A C Stubbs; J L Severens; W K Redekop Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.380