Suzanne V Arnold1, Frederick A Masoudi, John S Rumsfeld, Yan Li, Philip G Jones, John A Spertus. 1. From Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO (S.V.A., Y.L., P.G.J., J.A.S.); University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO (S.V.A., J.A.S.); and the Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado, Denver, CO (F.A.M., J.S.R.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Before outcomes-based measures of quality can be used to compare and improve care, they must be risk-standardized to account for variations in patient characteristics. Despite the importance of health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), no risk-standardized models have been developed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed disease-specific HRQL using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire at baseline and 1 year later in 2693 unselected AMI patients from 24 hospitals enrolled in the Translational Research Investigating Underlying disparities in acute Myocardial infarction Patients' Health status (TRIUMPH) registry. Using 57 candidate sociodemographic, economic, and clinical variables present on admission, we developed a parsimonious, hierarchical linear regression model to predict HRQL. Eleven variables were independently associated with poor HRQL after AMI, including younger age, previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, depressive symptoms, and financial difficulties (R(2)=20%). The model demonstrated excellent internal calibration and reasonable calibration in an independent sample of 1890 AMI patients in a separate registry, although the model slightly overpredicted HRQL scores in the higher deciles. Among the 24 TRIUMPH hospitals, 1-year unadjusted HRQL scores ranged from 67-89. After risk-standardization, HRQL score variability narrowed substantially (range=79-83), and the group of hospital performance (bottom 20%/middle 60%/top 20%) changed in 14 of the 24 hospitals (58% reclassification with risk-standardization). CONCLUSIONS: In this predictive model for HRQL after AMI, we identified risk factors, including economic and psychological characteristics, associated with HRQL outcomes. Adjusting for these factors substantially altered the rankings of hospitals as compared with unadjusted comparisons. Using this model to compare risk-standardized HRQL outcomes across hospitals may identify processes of care that maximize this important patient-centered outcome.
BACKGROUND: Before outcomes-based measures of quality can be used to compare and improve care, they must be risk-standardized to account for variations in patient characteristics. Despite the importance of health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), no risk-standardized models have been developed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed disease-specific HRQL using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire at baseline and 1 year later in 2693 unselected AMI patients from 24 hospitals enrolled in the Translational Research Investigating Underlying disparities in acute Myocardial infarctionPatients' Health status (TRIUMPH) registry. Using 57 candidate sociodemographic, economic, and clinical variables present on admission, we developed a parsimonious, hierarchical linear regression model to predict HRQL. Eleven variables were independently associated with poor HRQL after AMI, including younger age, previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, depressive symptoms, and financial difficulties (R(2)=20%). The model demonstrated excellent internal calibration and reasonable calibration in an independent sample of 1890 AMI patients in a separate registry, although the model slightly overpredicted HRQL scores in the higher deciles. Among the 24 TRIUMPH hospitals, 1-year unadjusted HRQL scores ranged from 67-89. After risk-standardization, HRQL score variability narrowed substantially (range=79-83), and the group of hospital performance (bottom 20%/middle 60%/top 20%) changed in 14 of the 24 hospitals (58% reclassification with risk-standardization). CONCLUSIONS: In this predictive model for HRQL after AMI, we identified risk factors, including economic and psychological characteristics, associated with HRQL outcomes. Adjusting for these factors substantially altered the rankings of hospitals as compared with unadjusted comparisons. Using this model to compare risk-standardized HRQL outcomes across hospitals may identify processes of care that maximize this important patient-centered outcome.
Entities:
Keywords:
myocardial infarction; quality of life; risk factors
Authors: J S Rumsfeld; D J Magid; M E Plomondon; M M O'Brien; J A Spertus; N R Every; A E Sales Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: E Boersma; K S Pieper; E W Steyerberg; R G Wilcox; W C Chang; K L Lee; K M Akkerhuis; R A Harrington; J W Deckers; P W Armstrong; A M Lincoff; R M Califf; E J Topol; M L Simoons Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-06-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John A Spertus; Martha J Radford; Nathan R Every; Edward F Ellerbeck; Eric D Peterson; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John S Rumsfeld; David J Magid; Mary E Plomondon; Anne E Sales; Gary K Grunwald; Nathan R Every; John A Spertus Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: S Rinfret; C L Grines; R S Cosgrove; K K Ho; D A Cox; B R Brodie; M C Morice; G W Stone; D J Cohen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kim A Eagle; Michael J Lim; Omar H Dabbous; Karen S Pieper; Robert J Goldberg; Frans Van de Werf; Shaun G Goodman; Christopher B Granger; P Gabriel Steg; Joel M Gore; Andrzej Budaj; Alvaro Avezum; Marcus D Flather; Keith A A Fox Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mohammed Qintar; Taishi Hirai; Suzanne V Arnold; Justin Sheehy; James Sapontis; Phil Jones; Yuanyuan Tang; William Lombardi; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Jeffery Moses; Christian Patterson; William J Nicholson; David J Cohen; John A Spertus; J Aaron Grantham; Adam C Salisbury Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; Jonathan Afilalo; John A Spertus; Yuanyuan Tang; Suzanne J Baron; Philip G Jones; Michael J Reardon; Steven J Yakubov; David H Adams; David J Cohen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Nathaniel A Erskine; Barbara Gandek; Hoang V Tran; Hawa Abu; David D McManus; Catarina I Kiefe; Robert J Goldberg Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2018-08-11 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Konstantin Schwarz; Satnam Singh; Satish Kumar Parasuraman; Maggie Bruce; Lee Shepstone; Martin Feelisch; Magdalena Minnion; Shakil Ahmad; John Horowitz; Dana K Dawson; Michael P Frenneaux Journal: Future Cardiol Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; Kim G Smolderen; Kevin F Kennedy; Yan Li; Supriya Shore; Joshua M Stolker; Tracy Y Wang; Philip G Jones; Zhenxiang Zhao; John A Spertus Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Jing Li; Rachel P Dreyer; Xi Li; Xue Du; Nicholas S Downing; Li Li; Hai-Bo Zhang; Fang Feng; Wen-Chi Guan; Xiao Xu; Shu-Xia Li; Zhen-Qiu Lin; Frederick A Masoudi; John A Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz; Li-Xin Jiang Journal: Chin Med J (Engl) Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; Jae-Sik Jang; Fengming Tang; Garth Graham; David J Cohen; John A Spertus Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2015-07-01
Authors: José-Luis López-Sendón; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Fausto Pinto; José Cuenca Castillo; Lina Badimón; Regina Dalmau; Esteban González Torrecilla; José Ramón López Mínguez; Alicia M Maceira; Domingo Pascual-Figal; José Luis Pomar Moya-Prats; Alessandro Sionis; José Luis Zamorano Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 29.983