Monique L Anderson1, Graham Nichol2, David Dai1, Paul S Chan3, Laine Thomas1, Sana M Al-Khatib1, Robert A Berg4, Steven M Bradley5, Eric D Peterson1. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Washington-Harborview Center for Prehospital Emergency Care, University of Washington, Seattle. 3. Department of Medicine, Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 5. Veteran Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver6Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Survival rates after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) vary significantly among US centers; whether this variation is owing to differences in IHCA care quality is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hospital-level variation to determine whether hospital process composite performance measures of IHCA care quality are associated with patient outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the American Heart Association's Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) program, we analyzed 35 283 patients 18 years or older with IHCA treated at 261 US hospitals from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012. We calculated the hospital process composite performance score for IHCA using 5 guideline-recommended process measures. Opportunity-based scores were calculated for all patients, aggregated at the hospital level, divided into quartiles, and then associated with risk-standardized survival and neurologic status by a test for trend. The scores were then evaluated through hierarchical logistic regression and reported as odds ratios per 10% increment in hospital process composite performance. INTERVENTIONS: Acute care treatments for IHCA. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival to discharge measured as risk standard survival rates, and the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic status at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of the 35 283 adults included in this study, the median age was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 56-78 years), and 57.9% were male. The median IHCA hospital process composite performance was 89.7% (interquartile range, 85.4%-93.1%) and varied among hospital quartiles from 82.6% (lowest) to 94.8% (highest). The IHCA hospital process composite performance was linearly associated with risk-standardized hospital survival to discharge rates: 21.1%, 21.4%, 22.8%, and 23.4% from lowest to highest performance quartiles, respectively (P < .001). After adjustment, each 10% increase in a hospital's process composite performance was associated with a 22% higher odds of survival (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.37; P = .01). Hospital process composite quality performance was also associated with favorable neurologic status at discharge (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The quality of guideline-based care for IHCA varies significantly among US hospitals and is associated with patient survival and neurologic outcomes.
IMPORTANCE: Survival rates after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) vary significantly among US centers; whether this variation is owing to differences in IHCA care quality is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate hospital-level variation to determine whether hospital process composite performance measures of IHCA care quality are associated with patient outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the American Heart Association's Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) program, we analyzed 35 283 patients 18 years or older with IHCA treated at 261 US hospitals from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012. We calculated the hospital process composite performance score for IHCA using 5 guideline-recommended process measures. Opportunity-based scores were calculated for all patients, aggregated at the hospital level, divided into quartiles, and then associated with risk-standardized survival and neurologic status by a test for trend. The scores were then evaluated through hierarchical logistic regression and reported as odds ratios per 10% increment in hospital process composite performance. INTERVENTIONS: Acute care treatments for IHCA. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival to discharge measured as risk standard survival rates, and the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic status at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of the 35 283 adults included in this study, the median age was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 56-78 years), and 57.9% were male. The median IHCA hospital process composite performance was 89.7% (interquartile range, 85.4%-93.1%) and varied among hospital quartiles from 82.6% (lowest) to 94.8% (highest). The IHCA hospital process composite performance was linearly associated with risk-standardized hospital survival to discharge rates: 21.1%, 21.4%, 22.8%, and 23.4% from lowest to highest performance quartiles, respectively (P < .001). After adjustment, each 10% increase in a hospital's process composite performance was associated with a 22% higher odds of survival (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.37; P = .01). Hospital process composite quality performance was also associated with favorable neurologic status at discharge (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The quality of guideline-based care for IHCA varies significantly among US hospitals and is associated with patient survival and neurologic outcomes.
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: Eric D Peterson; Elizabeth R DeLong; Frederick A Masoudi; Sean M O'Brien; Pamela N Peterson; John S Rumsfeld; David M Shahian; Richard E Shaw Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R O Cummins; D A Chamberlain; N S Abramson; M Allen; P J Baskett; L Becker; L Bossaert; H H Delooz; W F Dick; M S Eisenberg Journal: Circulation Date: 1991-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David M Shahian; Sean M O'Brien; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Eric D Peterson; Fred H Edwards Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Mary Ann Peberdy; Joseph P Ornato; G Luke Larkin; R Scott Braithwaite; T Michael Kashner; Scott M Carey; Peter A Meaney; Liyi Cen; Vinay M Nadkarni; Amy H Praestgaard; Robert A Berg Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary Ann Peberdy; William Kaye; Joseph P Ornato; Gregory L Larkin; Vinay Nadkarni; Mary Elizabeth Mancini; Robert A Berg; Graham Nichol; Tanya Lane-Trultt Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Amrut V Ambardekar; Gregg C Fonarow; David Dai; Eric D Peterson; Adrian F Hernandez; Christopher P Cannon; Mori J Krantz Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-11-14 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Patrick J Coppler; Jonathan Elmer; Jon C Rittenberger; Clifton W Callaway; David J Wallace Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Monique Anderson Starks; Jingjing Wu; Eric D Peterson; Judith A Stafford; Roland A Matsouaka; L Ebony Boulware; Laura P Svetkey; Paul S Chan; Patrick H Pun Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Lee Joseph; Paul S Chan; Steven M Bradley; Yunshu Zhou; Garth Graham; Philip G Jones; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin; Saket Girotra Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Jordan M Harrison; Linda H Aiken; Douglas M Sloane; J Margo Brooks Carthon; Raina M Merchant; Robert A Berg; Matthew D McHugh Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Lauren E Thompson; Paul S Chan; Fengming Tang; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Saket Girotra; Sarah M Perman; Somnath Bose; Stacie L Daugherty; Steven M Bradley Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Shelby Kutty; Philip G Jones; Quentin Karels; Navya Joseph; John A Spertus; Paul S Chan Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lars W Andersen; Mathias J Holmberg; Katherine M Berg; Michael W Donnino; Asger Granfeldt Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 56.272