Yangfeng Wu1,2, Shenshen Li1, Anushka Patel3, Xian Li1,4, Xin Du5, Tao Wu1, Yifei Zhao1, Lin Feng2, Laurent Billot3, Eric D Peterson6, Mark Woodward7,8, Lingzhi Kong9, Yong Huo10, Dayi Hu11, Kalipso Chalkidou12, Runlin Gao13,14,15. 1. George Institute for Global Health at Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China. 2. Peking University Clinical Research Institute, Beijing, China. 3. George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. 5. Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 6. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 7. George Institute for Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England. 8. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 9. Chinese Prevention Medical Association, Beijing, China. 10. Department of Cardiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China. 11. Department of Cardiology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China. 12. Global Health and Development, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom. 13. Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute and Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, China. 14. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. 15. Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Abstract
Importance: Prior observational studies suggest that quality of care improvement (QCI) initiatives can improve the clinical outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). To our knowledge, this has never been demonstrated in a well-powered randomized clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether a clinical pathway-based, multifaceted QCI intervention could improve clinical outcomes among patients with ACS in resource-constrained hospitals in China. Design, Setting, Participants: This large, stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in nonpercutaneous coronary intervention hospitals across China and included all patients older than 18 years and with a final diagnosis of ACS who were recruited consecutively between October 2011 and December 2014. We excluded patients who died before or within 10 minutes of hospital arrival. We recruited 5768 and 0 eligible patients for the control and intervention groups, respectively, in step 1, 4326 and 1365 in step 2, 3278 and 3059 in step 3, 1419 and 4468 in step 4, and 0 and 5645 in step 5. Interventions: The intervention included establishing a QCI team, training clinical staff, implementing ACS clinical pathways, sequential site performance assessment and feedback, online technical support, and patient education. The usual care was the control that was compared. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising all-cause mortality, reinfarction/myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included 16 key performance indicators (KPIs) and the composite score developed from these KPIs. Results: Of 29 346 patients (17 639 men [61%]; mean [SD] age for control, 64.1 [11.6] years; mean [SD] age for intervention, 63.9 [11.7] years) who were recruited from 101 hospitals, 14 809 (50.5%) were in the control period and 14 537 (49.5%) were in the intervention period. There was no significant difference in the incidence of in-hospital MACE between the intervention and control periods after adjusting for cluster and time effects (3.9% vs 4.4%; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15; P = .52). The intervention showed a significant improvement in the composite KPI score (mean [SD], 0.69 [0.22] vs 0.61 [0.23]; P < .01) and in 7 individual KPIs, including the early use of antiplatelet therapy and the use of appropriate secondary prevention medicines at discharge. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Conclusions and Relevance: Among resource-constrained Chinese hospitals, introducing a multifaceted QCI intervention had no significant effect on in-hospital MACE, although it improved a few of the care process indicators of evidence-based ACS management. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01398228.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Prior observational studies suggest that quality of care improvement (QCI) initiatives can improve the clinical outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). To our knowledge, this has never been demonstrated in a well-powered randomized clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether a clinical pathway-based, multifaceted QCI intervention could improve clinical outcomes among patients with ACS in resource-constrained hospitals in China. Design, Setting, Participants: This large, stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in nonpercutaneous coronary intervention hospitals across China and included all patients older than 18 years and with a final diagnosis of ACS who were recruited consecutively between October 2011 and December 2014. We excluded patients who died before or within 10 minutes of hospital arrival. We recruited 5768 and 0 eligible patients for the control and intervention groups, respectively, in step 1, 4326 and 1365 in step 2, 3278 and 3059 in step 3, 1419 and 4468 in step 4, and 0 and 5645 in step 5. Interventions: The intervention included establishing a QCI team, training clinical staff, implementing ACS clinical pathways, sequential site performance assessment and feedback, online technical support, and patient education. The usual care was the control that was compared. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising all-cause mortality, reinfarction/myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included 16 key performance indicators (KPIs) and the composite score developed from these KPIs. Results: Of 29 346 patients (17 639 men [61%]; mean [SD] age for control, 64.1 [11.6] years; mean [SD] age for intervention, 63.9 [11.7] years) who were recruited from 101 hospitals, 14 809 (50.5%) were in the control period and 14 537 (49.5%) were in the intervention period. There was no significant difference in the incidence of in-hospital MACE between the intervention and control periods after adjusting for cluster and time effects (3.9% vs 4.4%; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15; P = .52). The intervention showed a significant improvement in the composite KPI score (mean [SD], 0.69 [0.22] vs 0.61 [0.23]; P < .01) and in 7 individual KPIs, including the early use of antiplatelet therapy and the use of appropriate secondary prevention medicines at discharge. No unexpected adverse events were reported. Conclusions and Relevance: Among resource-constrained Chinese hospitals, introducing a multifaceted QCI intervention had no significant effect on in-hospital MACE, although it improved a few of the care process indicators of evidence-based ACS management. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01398228.
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: R Gao; A Patel; W Gao; D Hu; D Huang; L Kong; W Qi; Y Wu; Y Yang; P Harris; C Algert; P Groenestein; F Turnbull Journal: Heart Date: 2007-10-11 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Alexander K Rowe; Samantha Y Rowe; David H Peters; Kathleen A Holloway; John Chalker; Dennis Ross-Degnan Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2018-10-08 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Ehete Bahiru; Anubha Agarwal; Mark A Berendsen; Abigail S Baldridge; Tecla Temu; Amy Rogers; Carey Farquhar; Frederick Bukachi; Mark D Huffman Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-09-06
Authors: Haiyan Xu; Yuejin Yang; Chuangshi Wang; Jingang Yang; Wei Li; Xuan Zhang; Yunqing Ye; Qiuting Dong; Rui Fu; Hui Sun; Xinxin Yan; Xiaojin Gao; Yang Wang; Xuan Jia; Yi Sun; Yuan Wu; Jun Zhang; Wei Zhao; Marc S Sabatine; Stephen D Wiviott Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-10-01