Background. Measurement of PCI quality has previously focused on post-procedure outcomes and processes of care. PCI appropriateness provides an assessment of quality as it relates to patient selection and anticipated procedural benefit relative to potential harm. The relationship, if any, between case selection and in-hospital procedural outcomes is unknown. Methods. We identified 203,531 consecutive patients from 779 hospitals undergoing non-acute (elective) PCI within the CathPCI Registry ® between July, 2009 and April, 2011. We examined the association between a hospital’s proportion of inappropriate PCI in non-acute settings (as assessed by the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Coronary Revascularization) and (1) risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality; (2) risk-adjusted bleeding complications; and (3) use of optimal guideline directed discharge medications (i.e. aspirin, thienopyridine, and statin on discharge). Results. Of the 24,532 patients who received PCI for non-acute indications, 453 (0.2%) died in-hospital and 3699 (1.8%) suffered bleeding events. The hospital proportion of inappropriate PCI in non-acute settings ranged from 0.0% to 58.6%. Categorized as hospital tertiles, the median proportion of inappropriate PCI was 5.3% in hospitals of the lowest-tertile, 10.9% in the middle-tertile, and 20.0% in the highest-tertile. The hospital proportion of inappropriate PCI was not associated with mortality for PCI in non-acute settings (Risk-adjusted mortality ratio; 0.7 vs. 0.7 vs. 0.8 from lowest to highest-tertile, P=0.75 for trend), risk-adjusted bleeding complications (Risk-adjusted bleeding ratio; 0.6 vs. 0.6 vs. 0.6, P=0.81), or use of optimal PCI discharge medications (85.3% vs. 85.7% vs. 85.2%, P=0.58). Conclusions. In a national cohort of non-acute PCIs from 779 hospitals, hospital proportion of inappropriate PCI indications was not associated with in-hospital mortality, bleeding, or process of care measures of PCI quality. These findings suggest PCI appropriateness and post-procedural outcomes measure different aspects of hospital PCI quality.
Clinical Prediction Model Suitable for Assessing Hospital Quality for Patients Undergoing Carotid Endarterectomy
Background Assessing hospital quality in the performance of carotid endarterectomy ( CEA ) requires appropriate risk adjustment across hospitals with varying case mixes. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model to assess the risk of in‐hospital stroke or death after CEA that could aid in the assessment of hospital quality. Methods and Results Patients from National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)'s Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy (CARE) Registry undergoing CEA without acute evolving stroke from 2005 to 2013 were included. In‐hospital stroke or death was modeled using hierarchical logistic regression with 20 candidate variables and accounting for hospital‐level clustering. Internal validation was achieved with bootstrapping; model discrimination and calibration were assessed. A total of 213 (1.7%) primary end point events occurred during 12 889 procedures. Independent predictors of stroke or death included age, prior peripheral artery disease, diabetes mellitus, prior coronary artery disease, having a symptomatic carotid lesion, having a contralateral carotid occlusion, or having New York Heart Association Class III or IV heart failure. The model was well calibrated and demonstrated moderate discriminative ability (c‐statistic 0.65). The NCDR CEA score was then developed to support simple, prospective risk quantification in the clinical setting. Conclusions The NCDR CEA score, comprising 7 clinical variables, predicts in‐hospital stroke or death after CEA . This model can be used to estimate hospital risk‐adjusted outcomes for CEA and to assist with the assessment of hospital quality.
Hospital Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Appropriateness and In-Hospital Procedural Outcomes
Background— Measurement of hospital quality has traditionally focused on processes of care and postprocedure outcomes. Appropriateness measures for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) assess quality as it relates to patient selection and the decision to perform PCI. The association between patient selection for PCI and processes of care and postprocedural outcomes is unknown. Methods and Results— We included 203 531 patients undergoing nonacute (elective) PCI from 779 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry between July 2009 and April 2011. We examined the association between a hospital's proportion of nonacute PCIs categorized as inappropriate by the 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Coronary Revascularization and in-hospital mortality, bleeding complications, and use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy at discharge (ie, aspirin, thienopyridines, and statins). When categorized as hospital tertiles, the range of inappropriate PCI was 0.0% to 8.1% in the lowest tertile, 8.1% to 15.2% in the middle tertile, and 15.2% to 58.6% in the highest tertile. Compared with lowest-tertile hospitals, mortality was not significantly different at middle-tertile (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73–1.19) or highest-tertile hospitals (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.88–1.43; P =0.35 for differences between tertiles). Similarly, risk-adjusted bleeding did not vary significantly (middle-tertile OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02–1.16; highest-tertile OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91–1.16; P =0.07 for differences between tertiles) nor did use of optimal medical therapy at discharge (85.3% versus 85.7% versus 85.2%; P =0.58). Conclusions— In a national cohort of nonacute PCIs, a hospital's proportion of inappropriate PCIs was not associated with in-hospital mortality, bleeding, or medical therapy at discharge. This suggests PCI appropriateness measures aspects of hospital PCI quality that are independent of how well the procedure is performed. Therefore, PCI appropriateness and postprocedural outcomes are both important metrics to inform PCI quality.
Trends in the Association Between Age and In-Hospital Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Background— Temporal trends and contemporary data characterizing the impact of patient age on in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions are lacking. We sought to determine the importance of age by assessing the in-hospital mortality of stratified age groups in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Methods and Results— In-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention on 1 410 069 patients was age stratified into 4 groups—group 1 (age <40, n=25 679), group 2 (40 to 59, n=496 204), group 3 (60 to 79, n=732 574), and group 4 (≥80, n=155 612)—admitted from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2006. Overall in-hospital mortality was 1.22%; in-hospital mortality was 0.60%, 0.59%, 1.26%, and 3.16% in groups 1 to 4, respectively, P <0.0001. Overall temporal improvement per calendar year in the adjusted in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention was noted in most groups; however, this finding was significant only in the 2 older age groups, group 3 (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.96) and group 4 (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.97). The absolute mortality reduction was greatest in the most elderly group, those over the age of 80 years. Conclusions— In-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention has fallen for all age groups over the past 6 years. However, the largest absolute reduction was seen among patients 80 years of age or older.