Literature DB >> 32347890

Performance of Hospitals When Assessing Disease-Based Mortality Compared With Procedural Mortality for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Ashwin S Nathan1,2,3, Qun Xiang4, Daniel Wojdyla4, Sameed Ahmed M Khatana1,2,3, Elias J Dayoub2,3,5, Rishi K Wadhera6,7, Deepak L Bhatt6, Daniel M Kolansky1, Ajay J Kirtane8, Sunil V Rao4, Robert W Yeh7, Peter W Groeneveld2,3,5,9, Tracy Y Wang4, Jay Giri1,2,3,5.   

Abstract

Importance: Quality of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is commonly assessed by risk-adjusted mortality. However, this metric may result in procedural risk aversion, especially for high-risk patients. Objective: To determine correlation and reclassification between hospital-level disease-specific mortality and PCI procedural mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Design, Setting, and Participants: This hospital-level observational cross-sectional multicenter analysis included hospitals participating in the Chest Pain-MI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of type I non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and hospitals in the CathPCI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients treated with PCI with an indication of NSTEMI or STEMI, between April 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Exposures: Inclusion into the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI and CathPCI registries. Main Outcomes and Measures: For each hospital in each registry, a disease-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-D) for AMI was calculated, which represents a risk-adjusted observed to expected rate of mortality for AMI as a disease using the Chest Pain-MI Registry, and a procedure-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-P) for PCI was calculated using the CathPCI Registry.
Results: A subset of 625 sites participated in both registries, with a final count of 776 890 patients from the Chest Pain-MI Registry (509 576 men [65.6%]; 620 981 white [80.0%]; and median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 55-74 years]) and 853 386 patients from the CathPCI Registry (582 701 men [68.3%]; 691 236 white [81.0%]; and median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 54-73 years]). Among the 625 linked hospitals, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between EMR-D and EMR-P produced a ρ of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.47-0.58), suggesting moderate correlation. Among the highest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 90 of 208 sites (43.3%) were classified into a lower category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Among the lowest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 92 of 208 sites (44.2%) were classified into a higher category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Bland-Altman plots for the overall linked cohort demonstrate a mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D of 0.49% (95% CI, -1.61% to 2.58%; P < .001), with procedural mortality higher than disease-based mortality. However, among patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest, the mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D was -0.64% (95% CI, -4.41% to 3.12%; P < .001), with procedural mortality lower than disease-based mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that, for hospitals treating patients with AMI, there is only a moderate correlation between procedural outcomes and disease-based outcomes. Nearly half of hospitals in the highest tertile of performance for PCI performance were reclassified into a lower performance tertile when judged by disease-based metrics. Higher rates of mortality were observed when using disease-based metrics compared with procedural metrics when assessing patients with cardiogenic shock and/or cardiac arrest, signifying what appears to be potential risk avoidance among this highest-risk subset of patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32347890      PMCID: PMC7191472          DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0753

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


  22 in total

1.  Toward Precision Policy - The Case of Cardiovascular Care.

Authors:  Rishi K Wadhera; Deepak L Bhatt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Assessment of Operator Variability in Risk-Standardized Mortality Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report From the NCDR.

Authors:  Jacob A Doll; Dadi Dai; Matthew T Roe; John C Messenger; Matthew W Sherwood; Abhiram Prasad; Ehtisham Mahmud; John S Rumsfeld; Tracy Y Wang; Eric D Peterson; Sunil V Rao
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 11.195

3.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  Risk adjustment for in-hospital mortality of contemporary patients with acute myocardial infarction: the acute coronary treatment and intervention outcomes network (ACTION) registry-get with the guidelines (GWTG) acute myocardial infarction mortality model and risk score.

Authors:  Chee Tang Chin; Anita Y Chen; Tracy Y Wang; Karen P Alexander; Robin Mathews; John S Rumsfeld; Christopher P Cannon; Gregg C Fonarow; Eric D Peterson; Matthew T Roe
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.749

7.  One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  J S Hochman; L A Sleeper; H D White; V Dzavik; S C Wong; V Menon; J G Webb; R Steingart; M H Picard; M A Menegus; J Boland; T Sanborn; C E Buller; S Modur; R Forman; P Desvigne-Nickens; A K Jacobs; J N Slater; T H LeJemtel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-01-10       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Treatment and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Shock After Public Reporting Policy Changes in New York.

Authors:  James M McCabe; Stephen W Waldo; Kevin F Kennedy; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 14.676

9.  Enhanced mortality risk prediction with a focus on high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 1,208,137 procedures in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry).

Authors:  J Matthew Brennan; Jeptha P Curtis; David Dai; Susan Fitzgerald; Akshay K Khandelwal; John A Spertus; Sunil V Rao; Mandeep Singh; Richard E Shaw; Kalon K L Ho; Ronald J Krone; William S Weintraub; W Douglas Weaver; Eric D Peterson
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 11.195

10.  Effect of Public Reporting on the Utilization of Coronary Angiography After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Authors:  Ashwin S Nathan; Rohan M Shah; Sameed A Khatana; Elias Dayoub; Paula Chatterjee; Nimesh D Desai; Stephen W Waldo; Robert W Yeh; Peter W Groeneveld; Jay Giri
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 7.514

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Potential roles of mitochondrial cofactors in the adjuvant mitigation of proinflammatory acute infections, as in the case of sepsis and COVID-19 pneumonia.

Authors:  Giovanni Pagano; Carla Manfredi; Federico V Pallardó; Alex Lyakhovich; Luca Tiano; Marco Trifuoggi
Journal:  Inflamm Res       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 4.575

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.