Rebecca Vigen1, John A Spertus2, Thomas M Maddox2, P Michael Ho2, Philip G Jones2, Suzanne V Arnold2, Frederick A Masoudi2, Steven M Bradley2. 1. From the University of Texas at Southwestern, Dallas (R.V.); Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute/University of Missouri, Kansas City (J.A.S., P.G.J, S.V.A); VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver (T.M.M., P.M.H., S.M.B.); University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (T.M.M., P.M.H., S.M.B.); and Colorado Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (CCOR) Consortium, Denver (T.M.M., P.M.H., S.M.B.). Rebecca.vigen@phhs.org. 2. From the University of Texas at Southwestern, Dallas (R.V.); Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute/University of Missouri, Kansas City (J.A.S., P.G.J, S.V.A); VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver (T.M.M., P.M.H., S.M.B.); University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (T.M.M., P.M.H., S.M.B.); and Colorado Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (CCOR) Consortium, Denver (T.M.M., P.M.H., S.M.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite calls to expand measurement of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) outcomes to include symptom burden, little has been done to describe hospital-level variation in this patient-centered outcome, or its association with mortality. Understanding the relationship between symptoms and longer-term mortality could inform the importance of these outcomes for monitoring quality of care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 4316 patients with AMI treated at 24 hospitals participating in the Translational Research Investigating Underlying Disparities in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients' Health Status (TRIUMPH) study, we assessed risk-standardized 1-year symptom burden as measured by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency Score and mortality attributed to the hospital that provided AMI care. Median odds ratios were used to assess outcome variation and reflect the relative odds of an outcome for 2 patients with identical covariates at different, randomly selected, hospitals. We then evaluated the correlation between hospital-level mortality and angina. Finally, we determined the extent to which variation in mortality and angina was explained by achievement of AMI performance measures. We observed hospital variation in risk-adjusted 1-year mortality (range, 4.9%-8.6%; median odds ratio, 1.30; P=0.01) and angina (range, 17.7%-29.4%; median odds ratio, 1.34; P<0.001). At the hospital level, mortality and angina at 1 year were weakly correlated (r=0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.68; P=0.05). Accounting for the quality of AMI care did not attenuate variation in risk-adjusted 1-year mortality or angina. CONCLUSIONS:Symptom burden and mortality vary at the hospital level after AMI and are only weakly correlated. These findings suggest that symptom burden should be considered a separate quality domain that is not well captured by current quality metrics.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite calls to expand measurement of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) outcomes to include symptom burden, little has been done to describe hospital-level variation in this patient-centered outcome, or its association with mortality. Understanding the relationship between symptoms and longer-term mortality could inform the importance of these outcomes for monitoring quality of care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 4316 patients with AMI treated at 24 hospitals participating in the Translational Research Investigating Underlying Disparities in Acute Myocardial InfarctionPatients' Health Status (TRIUMPH) study, we assessed risk-standardized 1-year symptom burden as measured by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency Score and mortality attributed to the hospital that provided AMI care. Median odds ratios were used to assess outcome variation and reflect the relative odds of an outcome for 2 patients with identical covariates at different, randomly selected, hospitals. We then evaluated the correlation between hospital-level mortality and angina. Finally, we determined the extent to which variation in mortality and angina was explained by achievement of AMI performance measures. We observed hospital variation in risk-adjusted 1-year mortality (range, 4.9%-8.6%; median odds ratio, 1.30; P=0.01) and angina (range, 17.7%-29.4%; median odds ratio, 1.34; P<0.001). At the hospital level, mortality and angina at 1 year were weakly correlated (r=0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.68; P=0.05). Accounting for the quality of AMI care did not attenuate variation in risk-adjusted 1-year mortality or angina. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom burden and mortality vary at the hospital level after AMI and are only weakly correlated. These findings suggest that symptom burden should be considered a separate quality domain that is not well captured by current quality metrics.
Authors: Eric D Peterson; Matthew T Roe; Jyotsna Mulgund; Elizabeth R DeLong; Barbara L Lytle; Ralph G Brindis; Sidney C Smith; Charles V Pollack; L Kristin Newby; Robert A Harrington; W Brian Gibler; E Magnus Ohman Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Jeffrey L Anderson; Neil H Brooks; Francis M Fesmire; Costas T Lambrew; Mary Beth Landrum; W Douglas Weaver; John Whyte; Robert O Bonow; Susan J Bennett; Gregory Burke; Kim A Eagle; Jane Linderbaum; Frederick A Masoudi; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Ileana L Piña; Martha J Radford; John S Rumsfeld; James L Ritchie; John A Spertus Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-01-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Ralph G Brindis; John E Brush; David J Cohen; Andrew J Epstein; Karen Furie; George Howard; Eric D Peterson; Saif S Rathore; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Yun Wang; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-12-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elizabeth H Bradley; Jeph Herrin; Brian Elbel; Robert L McNamara; David J Magid; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Yongfei Wang; Sharon-Lise T Normand; John A Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Suzanne V Arnold; Mikhail Kosiborod; Fengming Tang; Zhenxiang Zhao; Thomas M Maddox; Patrick L McCollam; Julie Birt; John A Spertus Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-02-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Michael J Blaha; Stephanie E Chiuve; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Rajat Deo; Sarah D de Ferranti; James Floyd; Myriam Fornage; Cathleen Gillespie; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Lori Chaffin Jordan; Suzanne E Judd; Daniel Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Chris T Longenecker; Rachel H Mackey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Mathew J Reeves; Matthew Ritchey; Carlos J Rodriguez; Gregory A Roth; Wayne D Rosamond; Comilla Sasson; Amytis Towfighi; Connie W Tsao; Melanie B Turner; Salim S Virani; Jenifer H Voeks; Joshua Z Willey; John T Wilkins; Jason Hy Wu; Heather M Alger; Sally S Wong; Paul Muntner Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anna E Bortnick; Muhammad Shahid; Sanyog G Shitole; Michael Park; Anna Broder; Carlos J Rodriguez; James Scheuer; Robert Faillace; Jorge R Kizer Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Daniel M Blumenthal; Sidney E Howard; Jennifer Searl Como; Sandra M O'Keefe; Steven J Atlas; Daniel M Horn; Neil W Wagle; Jason H Wasfy; Robert W Yeh; Joshua P Metlay Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-06-01
Authors: Alexis L Beatty; Jacob A Doll; David W Schopfer; Charles Maynard; Mary E Plomondon; Hui Shen; Mary A Whooley Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 5.501