Jarrod E Dalton1, David A Zidar, Belinda L Udeh, Manesh R Patel, Jesse D Schold, Neal V Dawson. 1. *Departments of Quantitative Health Sciences and Outcomes Research, Cleveland Clinic †Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Case Medical Center ‡Department of Outcomes Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH §Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC ∥Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic ¶Center for Healthcare Research and Policy, Case Western Reserve University/MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While substantial practice variation in coronary revascularization has been described and deviation from clinical practice guidelines has been associated with worse outcomes, the degree to which this is driven by flawed decision making and/or appropriate deviation associated with comorbid conditions is unknown. We evaluated heterogeneity in procedure use, and the extent to which hospital-level practice variation is related to surgical mortality. METHODS: We analyzed data on 554,563 inpatients undergoing either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting at 391 centers in 6 states. Procedure-specific risk models were developed based on demographics and comorbidities, allowing for differential effects of comorbidities for each sex. For each patient, the revascularization procedure that minimized predicted probability of inhospital mortality was designated as the model-preferred procedure.Hospital-level discordance rates-the proportion of cases in each hospital for which the opposite from the model-preferred procedure was performed-were calculated. Hierarchical linear models were used to analyze the relationship between HDRs and hospital-level risk-standardized mortality ratios (RSMRs). RESULTS: Comorbidities and demographics alone explained between 68% and 86% of overall variation in inhospital mortality (corresponding C-statistics of 0.84-0.93). The mean (SD) HDR was 26.3% (9.6%). There was a positive independent association between HDRs and inhospital mortality, with a 10% increase in HDR associated with an 11% increase in RSMR (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Variance in procedure use according to model preference was strongly associated with worse outcomes. A systematic approach to incorporating comorbidity as part of the decision-making process for coronary revascularization is needed.
BACKGROUND: While substantial practice variation in coronary revascularization has been described and deviation from clinical practice guidelines has been associated with worse outcomes, the degree to which this is driven by flawed decision making and/or appropriate deviation associated with comorbid conditions is unknown. We evaluated heterogeneity in procedure use, and the extent to which hospital-level practice variation is related to surgical mortality. METHODS: We analyzed data on 554,563 inpatients undergoing either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting at 391 centers in 6 states. Procedure-specific risk models were developed based on demographics and comorbidities, allowing for differential effects of comorbidities for each sex. For each patient, the revascularization procedure that minimized predicted probability of inhospital mortality was designated as the model-preferred procedure.Hospital-level discordance rates-the proportion of cases in each hospital for which the opposite from the model-preferred procedure was performed-were calculated. Hierarchical linear models were used to analyze the relationship between HDRs and hospital-level risk-standardized mortality ratios (RSMRs). RESULTS: Comorbidities and demographics alone explained between 68% and 86% of overall variation in inhospital mortality (corresponding C-statistics of 0.84-0.93). The mean (SD) HDR was 26.3% (9.6%). There was a positive independent association between HDRs and inhospital mortality, with a 10% increase in HDR associated with an 11% increase in RSMR (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Variance in procedure use according to model preference was strongly associated with worse outcomes. A systematic approach to incorporating comorbidity as part of the decision-making process for coronary revascularization is needed.
Authors: Samer A M Nashef; François Roques; Linda D Sharples; Johan Nilsson; Christopher Smith; Antony R Goldstone; Ulf Lockowandt Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Friedrich W Mohr; Marie-Claude Morice; A Pieter Kappetein; Ted E Feldman; Elisabeth Ståhle; Antonio Colombo; Michael J Mack; David R Holmes; Marie-angèle Morel; Nic Van Dyck; Vicki M Houle; Keith D Dawkins; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John Chalmers; Mark Pullan; Brian Fabri; James McShane; Matthew Shaw; Neeraj Mediratta; Michael Poullis Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Sanneke P M de Boer; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Maarten A H van Leeuwen; Mattie J Lenzen; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Evelyn Regar; Nicolas M van Mieghem; Ron van Domburg; Felix Zijlstra; Patrick W Serruys; Eric Boersma Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: E L Hannan; M van Ryn; J Burke; D Stone; D Kumar; D Arani; W Pierce; S Rafii; T A Sanborn; S Sharma; J Slater; B A DeBuono Journal: Med Care Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Elliott Bennett-Guerrero; Yue Zhao; Sean M O'Brien; T B Ferguson; Eric D Peterson; James S Gammie; Howard K Song Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary A M Rogers; Neil Blumberg; Sanjay K Saint; Catherine Kim; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Kenneth M Langa Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 4.749