Literature DB >> 27463590

Rates of Invasive Management of Cardiogenic Shock in New York Before and After Exclusion From Public Reporting.

Sripal Bangalore1, Yu Guo2, Jinfeng Xu3, Saul Blecker4, Navdeep Gupta5, Frederick Feit1, Judith S Hochman1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Reduced rates of cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) are an unintended consequence of public reporting of cardiogenic shock outcomes in New York.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the referral rates for cardiac catheterization, PCI, or CABG have improved in New York since cardiogenic shock was excluded from public reporting in 2008 and compare them with corresponding rates in Michigan, New Jersey, and California. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction from 2002 to 2011 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock with similar baseline characteristics in New York and Michigan. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Percutaneous coronary intervention (primary outcome), invasive management (cardiac catheterization, PCI, or CABG), revascularization (PCI or CABG), and CABG were evaluated with reference to 3 calendar year periods: 2002-2005 (time 1: cardiogenic shock included in publicly reported outcomes), 2006-2007 (time 2: cardiogenic shock excluded on a trial basis), and 2008 and thereafter (time 3: cardiogenic shock excluded permanently) in New York and compared with Michigan.
RESULTS: Among 2126 propensity score-matched patients representing 10 795 (weighted) patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock in New York and Michigan, 905 (42.6%) were women and mean (SE) age was 69.5 (0.3) years. A significantly higher proportion of the patients underwent PCI (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 31.1% vs 39.8% vs 40.7% [OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.12-2.01; P = .005 for time 3 vs 1]), invasive management (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 59.7% vs 70.9% vs 73.8% [OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]), or revascularization (43.1% vs 55.9% vs 56.3% [OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.26-2.20; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]) after the exclusion of cardiogenic shock from public reporting in New York. However, during the same periods, a greater proportion of patients underwent PCI (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 41.2% vs 52.6% vs 57.8% [OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.45-2.56; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]), invasive management (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 64.4% vs 80.5% vs 78.6% [OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.47-2.74; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]), or revascularization (51.2% vs 65.8% vs 68.0% [OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.50-2.66; P < .001 for times 3 vs 1]) in Michigan. Results were largely similar in several sensitivity analyses comparing New York with New Jersey or California. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although the rates of PCI, invasive management, and revascularization have increased substantially after the exclusion of cardiogenic shock from public reporting in New York, these rates remain consistently lower than those observed in other states without public reporting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27463590     DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Cardiol            Impact factor:   14.676


  13 in total

1.  Public Reporting of Cardiac Outcomes for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Pamela B de Cordova; Mary L Johansen; Kathryn A Riman; Jeannette Rogowski
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Nurs       Date:  2019 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 2.083

2.  Management of Patients With Cardiac Arrest Complicating Myocardial Infarction in New York Before and After Public Reporting Policy Changes.

Authors:  Jordan B Strom; James M McCabe; Stephen W Waldo; Duane S Pinto; Kevin F Kennedy; Dmitriy N Feldman; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 6.546

Review 3.  Public Reporting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes: Moving Beyond the Status Quo.

Authors:  Rishi K Wadhera; Karen E Joynt Maddox; Robert W Yeh; Deepak L Bhatt
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 14.676

4.  A Survey of Interventional Cardiologists' Attitudes and Beliefs About Public Reporting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Daniel M Blumenthal; Linda R Valsdottir; Yuansong Zhao; Changyu Shen; Ajay J Kirtane; Duane S Pinto; Fred S Resnic; Karen E Joynt Maddox; Jason H Wasfy; Roxana Mehran; Ken Rosenfield; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2018-07-01       Impact factor: 14.676

5.  Is There a Correlation Between Infection Control Performance and Other Hospital Quality Measures?

Authors:  Lyndsay M O'Hara; Daniel J Morgan; Lisa Pineles; Shanshan Li; Carol Sulis; Jason Bowling; Marci Drees; Jesse T Jacob; Deverick J Anderson; David K Warren; Anthony D Harris
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 3.254

6.  Upstream Impact of Public Reporting.

Authors:  Aakriti Gupta; Hitinder S Gurm; Ajay J Kirtane
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 6.546

7.  2016 Revision of the SCAI position statement on public reporting.

Authors:  Lloyd W Klein; Kishore J Harjai; Fred Resnic; William S Weintraub; H Vernon Anderson; Robert W Yeh; Dmitriy N Feldman; Osvaldo S Gigliotti; Kenneth Rosenfeld; Peter Duffy
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Hemodynamic Support Devices for Shock and High-Risk PCI: When and Which One.

Authors:  George W Vetrovec
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 9.  High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Public Reporting States: the Evidence, Exclusion of Critically Ill Patients, and Implications.

Authors:  Rishi K Wadhera; Jordan D Anderson; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2017-12

10.  Taking the "Public" Out of Public Reporting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Rishi K Wadhera; Deepak L Bhatt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.