BACKGROUND: Measurement of hospital quality has traditionally focused on processes of care and postprocedure outcomes. Appropriateness measures for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) assess quality as it relates to patient selection and the decision to perform PCI. The association between patient selection for PCI and processes of care and postprocedural outcomes is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 203 531 patients undergoing nonacute (elective) PCI from 779 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry between July 2009 and April 2011. We examined the association between a hospital's proportion of nonacute PCIs categorized as inappropriate by the 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Coronary Revascularization and in-hospital mortality, bleeding complications, and use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy at discharge (ie, aspirin, thienopyridines, and statins). When categorized as hospital tertiles, the range of inappropriate PCI was 0.0% to 8.1% in the lowest tertile, 8.1% to 15.2% in the middle tertile, and 15.2% to 58.6% in the highest tertile. Compared with lowest-tertile hospitals, mortality was not significantly different at middle-tertile (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.19) or highest-tertile hospitals (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.88-1.43; P=0.35 for differences between tertiles). Similarly, risk-adjusted bleeding did not vary significantly (middle-tertile OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; highest-tertile OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.16; P=0.07 for differences between tertiles) nor did use of optimal medical therapy at discharge (85.3% versus 85.7% versus 85.2%; P=0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort of nonacute PCIs, a hospital's proportion of inappropriate PCIs was not associated with in-hospital mortality, bleeding, or medical therapy at discharge. This suggests PCI appropriateness measures aspects of hospital PCI quality that are independent of how well the procedure is performed. Therefore, PCI appropriateness and postprocedural outcomes are both important metrics to inform PCI quality.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of hospital quality has traditionally focused on processes of care and postprocedure outcomes. Appropriateness measures for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) assess quality as it relates to patient selection and the decision to perform PCI. The association between patient selection for PCI and processes of care and postprocedural outcomes is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 203 531 patients undergoing nonacute (elective) PCI from 779 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry between July 2009 and April 2011. We examined the association between a hospital's proportion of nonacute PCIs categorized as inappropriate by the 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Coronary Revascularization and in-hospital mortality, bleeding complications, and use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy at discharge (ie, aspirin, thienopyridines, and statins). When categorized as hospital tertiles, the range of inappropriate PCI was 0.0% to 8.1% in the lowest tertile, 8.1% to 15.2% in the middle tertile, and 15.2% to 58.6% in the highest tertile. Compared with lowest-tertile hospitals, mortality was not significantly different at middle-tertile (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.19) or highest-tertile hospitals (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.88-1.43; P=0.35 for differences between tertiles). Similarly, risk-adjusted bleeding did not vary significantly (middle-tertile OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; highest-tertile OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.16; P=0.07 for differences between tertiles) nor did use of optimal medical therapy at discharge (85.3% versus 85.7% versus 85.2%; P=0.58). CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort of nonacute PCIs, a hospital's proportion of inappropriate PCIs was not associated with in-hospital mortality, bleeding, or medical therapy at discharge. This suggests PCI appropriateness measures aspects of hospital PCI quality that are independent of how well the procedure is performed. Therefore, PCI appropriateness and postprocedural outcomes are both important metrics to inform PCI quality.
Authors: R G Brindis; S Fitzgerald; H V Anderson; R E Shaw; W S Weintraub; J F Williams Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Fulvio Stacul; Andy Adam; Christoph R Becker; Charles Davidson; Norbert Lameire; Peter A McCullough; James Tumlin Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: W S Weintraub; C R McKay; R N Riner; S G Ellis; P L Frommer; D B Carmichael; K E Hammermeister; M N Effros; J E Bost; D P Bodycombe Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Paul S Chan; Manesh R Patel; Lloyd W Klein; Ronald J Krone; Gregory J Dehmer; Kevin Kennedy; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; W Douglas Weaver; Frederick A Masoudi; John S Rumsfeld; Ralph G Brindis; John A Spertus Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William E Boden; Robert A O'Rourke; Koon K Teo; Pamela M Hartigan; David J Maron; William J Kostuk; Merril Knudtson; Marcin Dada; Paul Casperson; Crystal L Harris; Bernard R Chaitman; Leslee Shaw; Gilbert Gosselin; Shah Nawaz; Lawrence M Title; Gerald Gau; Alvin S Blaustein; David C Booth; Eric R Bates; John A Spertus; Daniel S Berman; G B John Mancini; William S Weintraub Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Michael Lincoff; John A Bittl; Robert A Harrington; Frederick Feit; Neal S Kleiman; J Daniel Jackman; Ian J Sarembock; David J Cohen; Douglas Spriggs; Ramin Ebrahimi; Gadi Keren; Jeffrey Carr; Eric A Cohen; Amadeo Betriu; Walter Desmet; Dean J Kereiakes; Wolfgang Rutsch; Robert G Wilcox; Pim J de Feyter; Alec Vahanian; Eric J Topol Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-02-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David E Winchester; Andrew Kitchen; John C Brandt; Raman S Dusaj; Salim S Virani; Steven M Bradley; Leslee J Shaw; Rebecca J Beyth Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Daniel M Alyesh; Milan Seth; David C Miller; James M Dupree; John Syrjamaki; Devraj Sukul; Simon Dixon; Eve A Kerr; Hitinder S Gurm; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2018-06
Authors: Deborah B Diercks; Michael C Kontos; Judd E Hollander; Bryn E Mumma; DaJuanicia N Holmes; Stephen Wiviott; Jorge F Saucedo; James A de Lemos Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Anjan K Chakrabarti; Maria V Grau-Sepulveda; Sean O'Brien; Cassandra Abueg; Angelo Ponirakis; Elizabeth Delong; Eric Peterson; Lloyd W Klein; Kirk N Garratt; William S Weintraub; C Michael Gibson Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Mouin S Abdallah; John A Spertus; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Kevin F Kennedy; Suzanne V Arnold; Paul S Chan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Nihar R Desai; Craig S Parzynski; Harlan M Krumholz; Karl E Minges; John C Messenger; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Jeptha P Curtis Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michael P Thomas; Craig S Parzynski; Jeptha P Curtis; Milan Seth; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Paul S Chan; John A Spertus; Manesh R Patel; Steven M Bradley; Hitinder S Gurm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Harindra C Wijeysundera; Feng Qiu; Paul Fefer; Maria C Bennell; Peter C Austin; Dennis T Ko Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2014-10-04 Impact factor: 2.298