Literature DB >> 22158396

Determinants of variations in coronary revascularization practices.

Jack V Tu1, Dennis T Ko, Helen Guo, Janice A Richards, Nancy Walton, Madhu K Natarajan, Harindra C Wijeysundera, Derek So, David A Latter, Christopher M Feindel, Kori Kingsbury, Eric A Cohen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ratio of percutaneous coronary interventions to coronary artery bypass graft surgeries (PCI:CABG ratio) varies considerably across hospitals. We conducted a comprehensive study to identify clinical and nonclinical factors associated with variations in the ratio across 17 cardiac centres in the province of Ontario.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we selected a population-based sample of 8972 patients who underwent an index cardiac catheterization between April 2006 and March 2007 at any of 17 hospitals that perform invasive cardiac procedures in the province. We classified the hospitals into four groups by PCI:CABG ratio (low [< 2.0], low-medium [2.0-2.7], medium-high [2.8-3.2] and high [> 3.2]). We explored the relative contribution of patient, physician and hospital factors to variations in the likelihood of patients receiving PCI or CABG surgery within 90 days after the index catheterization.
RESULTS: The mean PCI:CABG ratio was 2.7 overall. We observed a threefold variation in the ratios across the four hospital ratio groups, from a mean of 1.6 in the lowest ratio group to a mean of 4.6 in the highest ratio group. Patients with single-vessel disease usually received PCI (88.4%-99.0%) and those with left main artery disease usually underwent CABG (80.8%-94.2%), regardless of the hospital's procedure ratio. Variation in the management of patients with non-emergent multivessel disease accounted for most of the variation in the ratios across hospitals. The mode of revascularization largely reflected the recommendation of the physician performing the diagnostic catheterization and was also influenced by the revascularization "culture" at the treating hospital.
INTERPRETATION: The physician performing the diagnostic catheterization and the treating hospital were strong independent predictors of the mode of revascularization. Opportunities exist to improve transparency and consistency around the decision-making process for coronary revascularization, most notably among patients with non-emergent multivessel disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22158396      PMCID: PMC3273505          DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.111072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  24 in total

1.  Guidelines on myocardial revascularization.

Authors:  William Wijns; Philippe Kolh; Nicolas Danchin; Carlo Di Mario; Volkmar Falk; Thierry Folliguet; Scot Garg; Kurt Huber; Stefan James; Juhani Knuuti; Jose Lopez-Sendon; Jean Marco; Lorenzo Menicanti; Miodrag Ostojic; Massimo F Piepoli; Charles Pirlet; Jose L Pomar; Nicolaus Reifart; Flavio L Ribichini; Martin J Schalij; Paul Sergeant; Patrick W Serruys; Sigmund Silber; Miguel Sousa Uva; David Taggart
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2010-08-29       Impact factor: 29.983

2.  Estimating the number of coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures in Canada: a comparison of cardiac registry and Canadian Institute for Health Information data sources.

Authors:  Yana Gurevich; Anne McFarlane; Kathleen Morris; Aleksandra Jokovic; Gail M Peterson; Gregory K Webster
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2010 Aug-Sep       Impact factor: 5.223

3.  Putting ad hoc PCI on pause.

Authors:  Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Temporal trends in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State and Ontario.

Authors:  Dennis T Ko; Jack V Tu; Zaza Samadashvili; Helen Guo; David A Alter; Warren J Cantor; Edward L Hannan
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Patrick W Serruys; Marie-Claude Morice; A Pieter Kappetein; Antonio Colombo; David R Holmes; Michael J Mack; Elisabeth Ståhle; Ted E Feldman; Marcel van den Brand; Eric J Bass; Nic Van Dyck; Katrin Leadley; Keith D Dawkins; Friedrich W Mohr
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology: Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Manesh R Patel; Gregory J Dehmer; John W Hirshfeld; Peter K Smith; John A Spertus
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-01-08       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Adherence of catheterization laboratory cardiologists to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery: what happens in actual practice?

Authors:  Edward L Hannan; Michael J Racz; Jeffrey Gold; Kimberly Cozzens; Nicholas J Stamato; Tia Powell; Mary Hibberd; Gary Walford
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 8.  Systematic review: the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Authors:  Dena M Bravata; Allison L Gienger; Kathryn M McDonald; Vandana Sundaram; Marco V Perez; Robin Varghese; John R Kapoor; Reza Ardehali; Douglas K Owens; Mark A Hlatky
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials.

Authors:  Mark A Hlatky; Derek B Boothroyd; Dena M Bravata; Eric Boersma; Jean Booth; Maria M Brooks; Didier Carrié; Tim C Clayton; Nicolas Danchin; Marcus Flather; Christian W Hamm; Whady A Hueb; Jan Kähler; Sheryl F Kelsey; Spencer B King; Andrzej S Kosinski; Neuza Lopes; Kathryn M McDonald; Alfredo Rodriguez; Patrick Serruys; Ulrich Sigwart; Rodney H Stables; Douglas K Owens; Stuart J Pocock
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Variations in clinical decision-making between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons; a case for management by multidisciplinary teams?

Authors:  M A Denvir; J P Pell; A J Lee; J Rysdale; R J Prescott; H Eteiba; A Walker; P Mankad; I R Starkey
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2006-03-03       Impact factor: 1.637

View more
  28 in total

1.  Revascularization options: one size does not fit all.

Authors:  David R Holmes; Charanjit S Rihal
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-12-12       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Relation between initial treatment strategy in stable coronary artery disease and 1-year costs in Ontario: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Jaskaran S Kang; Maria C Bennell; Feng Qiu; Merril L Knudtson; Peter C Austin; Dennis T Ko; Harindra C Wijeysundera
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2016-08-08

3.  Determinants of variations in initial treatment strategies for stable ischemic heart disease.

Authors:  Maria C Bennell; Feng Qiu; Kori J Kingsbury; Peter C Austin; Harindra C Wijeysundera
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Comparative-effectiveness of revascularization versus routine medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease: a population-based study.

Authors:  Harindra C Wijeysundera; Maria C Bennell; Feng Qiu; Dennis T Ko; Jack V Tu; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Peter C Austin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-03-08       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Information needs of generalists and specialists using online best-practice algorithms to answer clinical questions.

Authors:  David A Cook; Kristi J Sorensen; Jane A Linderbaum; Laurie J Pencille; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  The Effect of Geographic Units of Analysis on Measuring Geographic Variation in Medical Services Utilization.

Authors:  Agnus M Kim; Jong Heon Park; Sungchan Kang; Kyosang Hwang; Taesik Lee; Yoon Kim
Journal:  J Prev Med Public Health       Date:  2016-07

7.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Frailty Assessment in Older Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery.

Authors:  Zhe Li; Steven Habbous; Jenny Thain; Daniel E Hall; A Dave Nagpal; Rodrigo Bagur; Bob Kiaii; Ava John-Baptiste
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2019-10-12       Impact factor: 5.223

8.  Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Severely Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Authors:  Louise Y Sun; Mario Gaudino; Robert J Chen; Anan Bader Eddeen; Marc Ruel
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 14.676

9.  Treatment variation in stent choice in patients with stable or unstable coronary artery disease.

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

10.  Comparison of Anatomic and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Alternative Initial Noninvasive Testing Strategies for the Diagnosis of Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

Authors:  Idan Roifman; Harindra C Wijeysundera; Peter C Austin; Mohammad R Rezai; Graham A Wright; Jack V Tu
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 5.501

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.