Amit N Vora1, Eric D Peterson2, Lisa A McCoy2, Kirk N Garratt3, Michael A Kutcher4, Steven P Marso5, Matthew T Roe2, John C Messenger6, Sunil V Rao2. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: a.vora@duke.edu. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Center for Heart and Vascular Health, Christiana Care Health System, Wilmington, Delaware. 4. Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 5. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore whether the use of bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) explains variability in hospital-level bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Prior studies have reported that bleeding rates following percutaneous coronary intervention vary markedly among hospitals, but the extent to which use of BAS explains this variation is unknown. METHODS: Using the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry's CathPCI Registry, estimated hospital-level bleeding rates from 2,459,686 procedures at 1,358 sites were determined. A series of models were fit to estimate random-effect variance, adjusting for patient risk (using the validated CathPCI bleeding risk model, C statistic = 0.77) and various combinations of BAS (transradial access, bivalirudin, vascular closure device use). The rate of any BAS use was also estimated for each hospital, and the association between percentage BAS use and predicted bleeding rates was determined. RESULTS: In total, 125,361 bleeding events (5.1%) were observed; patients experiencing bleeding events had lower rates of radial access (5.0% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001), bivalirudin therapy (43.8% vs. 59.4%), and vascular closure device use (32.9% vs. 42.4%, p < 0.001) than those without bleeding. There was significant variation in bleeding rates across hospitals (median 5.0%; interquartile range [IQR]: 2.7% to 6.6%), which persisted after incorporating patient-level risk (median 5.1%; IQR: 4.0% to 4.4%). Patient factors accounted for 20% of the overall hospital-level variation, and radial access plus bivalirudin use accounted for an additional 7.8% of the overall hospital-level variation. The median hospital rate of any BAS use was 86.6% (IQR: 72.5% to 94.1%). A significant decrease in observed hospital-level bleeding was seen in hospitals above the median in BAS use (adjusted odds ratio: 0.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.88 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: A modest proportion of the variation in hospitals' rates of bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention is attributable to differential use of BAS. Further analyses are required to determine the remaining approximately 70% causes of variation in percutaneous coronary intervention bleeding seen among hospitals.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore whether the use of bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) explains variability in hospital-level bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Prior studies have reported that bleeding rates following percutaneous coronary intervention vary markedly among hospitals, but the extent to which use of BAS explains this variation is unknown. METHODS: Using the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry's CathPCI Registry, estimated hospital-level bleeding rates from 2,459,686 procedures at 1,358 sites were determined. A series of models were fit to estimate random-effect variance, adjusting for patient risk (using the validated CathPCI bleeding risk model, C statistic = 0.77) and various combinations of BAS (transradial access, bivalirudin, vascular closure device use). The rate of any BAS use was also estimated for each hospital, and the association between percentage BAS use and predicted bleeding rates was determined. RESULTS: In total, 125,361 bleeding events (5.1%) were observed; patients experiencing bleeding events had lower rates of radial access (5.0% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001), bivalirudin therapy (43.8% vs. 59.4%), and vascular closure device use (32.9% vs. 42.4%, p < 0.001) than those without bleeding. There was significant variation in bleeding rates across hospitals (median 5.0%; interquartile range [IQR]: 2.7% to 6.6%), which persisted after incorporating patient-level risk (median 5.1%; IQR: 4.0% to 4.4%). Patient factors accounted for 20% of the overall hospital-level variation, and radial access plus bivalirudin use accounted for an additional 7.8% of the overall hospital-level variation. The median hospital rate of any BAS use was 86.6% (IQR: 72.5% to 94.1%). A significant decrease in observed hospital-level bleeding was seen in hospitals above the median in BAS use (adjusted odds ratio: 0.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.88 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: A modest proportion of the variation in hospitals' rates of bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention is attributable to differential use of BAS. Further analyses are required to determine the remaining approximately 70% causes of variation in percutaneous coronary intervention bleeding seen among hospitals.
Authors: Kumar Dharmarajan; Robert L McNamara; Yongfei Wang; Frederick A Masoudi; Joseph S Ross; Erica E Spatz; Nihar R Desai; James A de Lemos; Gregg C Fonarow; Paul A Heidenreich; Deepak L Bhatt; Susannah M Bernheim; Lara E Slattery; Yosef M Khan; Jeptha P Curtis Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 51.598