Frederick A Masoudi1, Angelo Ponirakis2, Robert W Yeh3, Thomas M Maddox4, Jim Beachy2, Paul N Casale5, Jeptha P Curtis6, James De Lemos7, Gregg Fonarow8, Paul Heidenreich9, Christina Koutras2, Mark Kremers10, John Messenger11, Issam Moussa12, William J Oetgen2, Matthew T Roe13, Kenneth Rosenfield3, Thomas P Shields2, John A Spertus14, Jessica Wei2, Christopher White15, Christopher H Young16, John S Rumsfeld4. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Colorado Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Consortium, Denver, Colorado. Electronic address: fred.masoudi@ucdenver.edu. 2. American College of Cardiology Foundation, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Colorado Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Consortium, Denver, Colorado; Department of Medicine, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado. 5. The Heart Group of Lancaster General Health, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. 8. Department of Medicine, University of California-Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 9. Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Medical Center, Palo Alto, California. 10. Mid Carolina Cardiology and Presbyterian Hospital, Charlotte, North Carolina. 11. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 12. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 13. Duke Cardiovascular Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 14. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Kansas. 15. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, Louisiana. 16. The Moran Company, Arlington, Virginia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report was to characterize the patients, participating centers, and measures of quality of care and outcomes for 5 NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) programs: 1) ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry-GWTG (Get With The Guidelines) for acute coronary syndromes; 2) CathPCI Registry for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention; 3) CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) Registry for carotid revascularization; 4) ICD Registry for implantable cardioverter defibrillators; and the 5) PINNACLE (Practice INNovation And CLinical Excellence) Registry for outpatients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). BACKGROUND: CVD is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States. The quality of care for patients with CVD is suboptimal. National registry programs, such as NCDR, permit assessments of the quality of care and outcomes for broad populations of patients with CVD. METHODS: For the year 2011, we assessed for each of the 5 NCDR programs: 1) demographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled patients; 2) key characteristics of participating centers; 3) measures of processes of care; and 4) patient outcomes. For selected variables, we assessed trends over time. RESULTS: In 2011 ACTION Registry-GWTG enrolled 119,967 patients in 567 hospitals; CathPCI enrolled 632,557 patients in 1,337 hospitals; CARE enrolled 4,934 patients in 130 hospitals; ICD enrolled 139,991 patients in 1,435 hospitals; and PINNACLE enrolled 249,198 patients (1,436,328 individual encounters) in 74 practices (1,222 individual providers). Data on performance metrics and outcomes, in some cases risk-adjusted with validated NCDR models, are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The NCDR provides a unique opportunity to understand the characteristics of large populations of patients with CVD, the centers that provide their care, quality of care provided, and important patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report was to characterize the patients, participating centers, and measures of quality of care and outcomes for 5 NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) programs: 1) ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry-GWTG (Get With The Guidelines) for acute coronary syndromes; 2) CathPCI Registry for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention; 3) CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) Registry for carotid revascularization; 4) ICD Registry for implantable cardioverter defibrillators; and the 5) PINNACLE (Practice INNovation And CLinical Excellence) Registry for outpatients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). BACKGROUND: CVD is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States. The quality of care for patients with CVD is suboptimal. National registry programs, such as NCDR, permit assessments of the quality of care and outcomes for broad populations of patients with CVD. METHODS: For the year 2011, we assessed for each of the 5 NCDR programs: 1) demographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled patients; 2) key characteristics of participating centers; 3) measures of processes of care; and 4) patient outcomes. For selected variables, we assessed trends over time. RESULTS: In 2011 ACTION Registry-GWTG enrolled 119,967 patients in 567 hospitals; CathPCI enrolled 632,557 patients in 1,337 hospitals; CARE enrolled 4,934 patients in 130 hospitals; ICD enrolled 139,991 patients in 1,435 hospitals; and PINNACLE enrolled 249,198 patients (1,436,328 individual encounters) in 74 practices (1,222 individual providers). Data on performance metrics and outcomes, in some cases risk-adjusted with validated NCDR models, are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The NCDR provides a unique opportunity to understand the characteristics of large populations of patients with CVD, the centers that provide their care, quality of care provided, and important patient outcomes.
Authors: Robert W Yeh; Matthew J Czarny; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Dean J Kereiakes; David R Holmes; Ralph G Brindis; W Douglas Weaver; John S Rumsfeld; Matthew T Roe; Sunghee Kim; Priscilla Driscoll-Shempp; Laura Mauri Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2014-11-16
Authors: Revathi Balakrishnan; Jeffrey S Berger; Lisa Tully; Anish Vani; Binita Shah; Joseph Burdowski; Edward Fisher; Arthur Schwartzbard; Steven Sedlis; Howard Weintraub; James A Underberg; Ann Danoff; James A Slater; Eugenia Gianos Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Joseph S Ross; Jonathan Bates; Craig S Parzynski; Joseph G Akar; Jeptha P Curtis; Nihar R Desai; James V Freeman; Ginger M Gamble; Richard Kuntz; Shu-Xia Li; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Frederick A Masoudi; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Isuru Ranasinghe; Richard E Shaw; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Med Devices (Auckl) Date: 2017-08-16
Authors: Rishi K Wadhera; Deepak L Bhatt; Tracy Y Wang; Di Lu; Joseph Lucas; Jose F Figueroa; Kirk N Garratt; Robert W Yeh; Karen E Joynt Maddox Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Jing Li; Xi Li; Qing Wang; Shuang Hu; Yongfei Wang; Frederick A Masoudi; John A Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz; Lixin Jiang Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 79.321