Alexander C Fanaroff1,2, Pearl Zakroysky2, Daniel Wojdyla2, Lisa A Kaltenbach2, Matthew W Sherwood2,3, Matthew T Roe1,2, Tracy Y Wang1,2, Eric D Peterson1,2, Hitinder S Gurm4, Mauricio G Cohen5, John C Messenger6, Sunil V Rao1,2. 1. Division of Cardiology (A.C.F., M.T.R., T.Y.W., E.D.P., S.V.R.), Duke University, Durham, NC. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute (A.C.F., P.Z., D.W., L.A.K., M.W.S., M.T.R., T.Y.W., E.D.P., S.V.R.), Duke University, Durham, NC. 3. Division of Cardiology, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, VA (M.W.S.). 4. Division of Cardiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (H.S.G.). 5. Division of Cardiology, University of Miami, FL (M.G.C.). 6. Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado, Aurora (J.C.M.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many studies show an inverse association between operator procedural volume and short-term adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the association between procedural volume and longer-term outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry data linked with Medicare claims data, we examined the association between operator PCI volume and long-term outcomes among patients ≥65 years of age. Operators were stratified by average annual PCI volume (counting PCIs performed in patients of all ages): low- (<50 PCIs), intermediate- (50-100), and high- (>100) volume operators. One-year unadjusted rates of death and major adverse coronary events (MACEs; defined as death, readmission for myocardial infarction, or unplanned coronary revascularization) were calculated with Kaplan-Meier methods. The proportional hazards assumption was not met, and risk-adjusted associations between operator volume and outcomes were calculated separately from the time of PCI to hospital discharge and from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, 723 644 PCI procedures were performed by 8936 operators: 2553 high-, 2878 intermediate-, and 3505 low-volume operators. Compared with high- and intermediate-volume operators, low-volume operators more often performed emergency PCI, and their patients had fewer cardiovascular comorbidities. Over 1-year follow-up, 15.9% of patients treated by low-volume operators had a MACE compared with 16.9% of patients treated by high-volume operators ( P=0.004). After multivariable adjustment, intermediate- and high-volume operators had a significantly lower rate of in-hospital death than low-volume operators (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96 for intermediate versus low; odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83 for high versus low). There were no significant differences in rates of MACEs, death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization between operator cohorts from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio for MACEs, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.01 for intermediate versus low; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04 for high versus low). CONCLUSIONS: Unadjusted 1-year outcomes after PCI were worse for older adults treated by operators with higher annual volume; however, patients treated by these operators had more cardiovascular comorbidities. After risk adjustment, higher operator volume was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and no difference in postdischarge MACEs.
BACKGROUND: Although many studies show an inverse association between operator procedural volume and short-term adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the association between procedural volume and longer-term outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry data linked with Medicare claims data, we examined the association between operator PCI volume and long-term outcomes among patients ≥65 years of age. Operators were stratified by average annual PCI volume (counting PCIs performed in patients of all ages): low- (<50 PCIs), intermediate- (50-100), and high- (>100) volume operators. One-year unadjusted rates of death and major adverse coronary events (MACEs; defined as death, readmission for myocardial infarction, or unplanned coronary revascularization) were calculated with Kaplan-Meier methods. The proportional hazards assumption was not met, and risk-adjusted associations between operator volume and outcomes were calculated separately from the time of PCI to hospital discharge and from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, 723 644 PCI procedures were performed by 8936 operators: 2553 high-, 2878 intermediate-, and 3505 low-volume operators. Compared with high- and intermediate-volume operators, low-volume operators more often performed emergency PCI, and their patients had fewer cardiovascular comorbidities. Over 1-year follow-up, 15.9% of patients treated by low-volume operators had a MACE compared with 16.9% of patients treated by high-volume operators ( P=0.004). After multivariable adjustment, intermediate- and high-volume operators had a significantly lower rate of in-hospital death than low-volume operators (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96 for intermediate versus low; odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83 for high versus low). There were no significant differences in rates of MACEs, death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization between operator cohorts from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio for MACEs, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.01 for intermediate versus low; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04 for high versus low). CONCLUSIONS: Unadjusted 1-year outcomes after PCI were worse for older adults treated by operators with higher annual volume; however, patients treated by these operators had more cardiovascular comorbidities. After risk adjustment, higher operator volume was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and no difference in postdischarge MACEs.
Authors: Kenichi Fujii; Stéphane G Carlier; Gary S Mintz; Yi-ming Yang; Issam Moussa; Giora Weisz; George Dangas; Roxana Mehran; Alexandra J Lansky; Edward M Kreps; Michael Collins; Gregg W Stone; Jeffrey W Moses; Martin B Leon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Eric D Peterson; David Dai; Elizabeth R DeLong; J Matthew Brennan; Mandeep Singh; Sunil V Rao; Richard E Shaw; Matthew T Roe; Kalon K L Ho; Lloyd W Klein; Ronald J Krone; William S Weintraub; Ralph G Brindis; John S Rumsfeld; John A Spertus Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sunil V Rao; David Dai; Sumeet Subherwal; William S Weintraub; Ralph S Brindis; John C Messenger; Renato D Lopes; Eric D Peterson Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Harlan M Krumholz; Zhenqiu Lin; Elizabeth E Drye; Mayur M Desai; Lein F Han; Michael T Rapp; Jennifer A Mattera; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2011-03
Authors: Dharam J Kumbhani; Christopher P Cannon; Gregg C Fonarow; Li Liang; Arman T Askari; W Frank Peacock; Eric D Peterson; Deepak L Bhatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Faisal Latif; Neal S Kleiman; David J Cohen; Michael J Pencina; Chen-Hsing Yen; Donald E Cutlip; David J Moliterno; Deborah Nassif; John J Lopez; Jorge F Saucedo Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Christopher P Kovach; Colin I O'Donnell; Stanley Swat; Jacob A Doll; Mary E Plomondon; Richard Schofield; Javier A Valle; Stephen W Waldo Journal: Cardiovasc Revasc Med Date: 2021-11-06
Authors: Patricia Harrington; Máirín Ryan; Kieran A Walsh; Thomas Plunkett; Kirsty K O'Brien; Conor Teljeur; Susan M Smith Journal: HRB Open Res Date: 2021-01-28
Authors: Christopher P Kovach; Annika Hebbe; Anna E Barón; Aaron Strobel; Mary E Plomondon; Javier A Valle; Stephen W Waldo Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Rohan Khera; Eric A Secemsky; Yongfei Wang; Nihar R Desai; Harlan M Krumholz; Thomas M Maddox; Kendrick A Shunk; Salim S Virani; Deepak L Bhatt; Jeptha Curtis; Robert W Yeh Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 44.409