Cozzens, Kimberly

Background: Hospitals’ risk-standardized mortality rates and outlier status (significantly higher/lower rates) are reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients using Medicare claims data. New York now has AMI claims data with blood pressure and heart rate added. Objective: The objective of this study was to see whether the appended database yields different hospital assessments than standard claims data. Methods: New York State clinically appended claims data for AMI were used to create 2 different risk models based on CMS methods: 1 with and 1 without the added clinical data. Model discrimination was compared, and differences between the models in hospital outlier status and tertile status were examined. Results: Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were both significant predictors of mortality in the clinically appended model. The C statistic for the model with the clinical variables added was significantly higher (0.803 vs. 0.773, P<0.001). The model without clinical variables identified 10 low outliers and all of them were percutaneous coronary intervention hospitals. When clinical variables were included in the model, only 6 of those 10 hospitals were low outliers, but there were 2 new low outliers. The model without clinical variables had only 3 high outliers, and the model with clinical variables included identified 2 new high outliers. Conclusion: Appending even a small number of clinical data elements to administrative data resulted in a difference in the assessment of hospital mortality outliers for AMI. The strategy of adding limited but important clinical data elements to administrative datasets should be considered when evaluating hospital quality for procedures and other medical conditions.

Background— Appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization (DC) were recently published. These criteria are yet to be examined for a large population of patients undergoing DC. Methods and Results— New York State’s Cardiac Diagnostic Catheterization Database was used to identify patients undergoing DC for coronary artery disease between 2010 and 2011 for suspected coronary artery disease. Patients were rated by the appropriate use criteria as appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate for DC. The relationships between various patient characteristics and the appropriateness ratings were examined, along with the relationships between hospital-level inappropriateness, for DC and 2 other hospital-level variables (hospital DC volume and percutaneous coronary intervention inappropriateness). Of the 8986 patients who could be rated for appropriateness, 35.3% were rated as appropriate, 39.8% as uncertain, and 24.9% as inappropriate. Of the 2240 patients rated as inappropriate, 56.7% were asymptomatic/had no previous stress test/had low or intermediate global coronary artery disease risk, 36.0% had a previous stress test with low-risk findings and no symptoms, and 7.3% were symptomatic/had no previous stress test/had low pretest probability. The median hospital-level inappropriateness rate was 28.5%, with a maximum of 48.8% and a minimum of 8.6%. Hospital-level inappropriateness was not related to hospital volume or inappropriateness for percutaneous coronary intervention. Conclusions— One quarter of patients undergoing DC for suspected coronary artery disease were rated as inappropriate for the procedure, approximately two thirds of these inappropriate patients had no previous stress test, and ≈90% of inappropriate patients with no previous stress test were asymptomatic with low or intermediate global risk scores.

Background— Little is known about what treatments patients receive after being diagnosed with stable coronary artery disease or what the comparative outcomes are for routine medical treatment (RMT) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with RMT for patients in a setting apart from randomized controlled trials. Methods and Results— Patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing cardiac catheterization in New York State between 2003 and 2008 were followed up to determine the treatment they received. Patients receiving RMT and patients receiving PCI with RMT were propensity matched through the use of 20 factors that could have a bearing on outcomes. The resulting cohort of 933 matched pairs was used to compare mortality/myocardial infarction (MI), mortality, MI, and subsequent revascularization rates. A total of 89% of all patients underwent PCI with RMT. PCI/RMT patients had significantly lower adverse outcome rates at 4 years for mortality/MI (16.5% versus 21.2%; P =0.003), mortality (10.2% versus 14.5%; P =0.02), MI (8.0% versus 11.3%; P =0.007), and subsequent revascularization (24.1% versus 29.1%; P =0.005). Adjusted RMT versus (PCI with RMT) hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.16–1.93) for mortality/MI and 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.08–1.97) for mortality. There were no differences for patients ≤65 years of age or for patients with single-vessel disease. Conclusions— Most patients with stable coronary artery disease in New York undergoing catheterization between 2003 and 2008 received PCI. Patients who received PCI experienced lower mortality, mortality/MI, and revascularization rates. The reasons for this finding need to be better understood, including the possible role of low medication adherence rates that have been found in other studies.

Background— The benefit of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (P-PCI) for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been well documented. However, controversy still exists as to whether PCI should be expanded to hospitals without coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Methods and Results— Patients who were discharged after PCI for STEMI between January 1, 2003, and December 12, 2006, in P-PCI centers (hospitals with no coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and PCI only for patients with STEMI) were propensity matched with patients in full service centers, and mortality and subsequent revascularization rates were compared. For patients undergoing PCI, there were no differences for in-hospital/30-day mortality (2.3% for P-PCI centers versus 1.9% for full service centers [ P =0.40]), emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery immediately after PCI (0.06% versus 0.35%, P =0.06), 3-year mortality (7.1% versus 5.9%, P =0.07), or 3-year subsequent revascularization (23.8% versus 21.5%, P =0.52). P-PCI centers had a lower same/next day coronary artery bypass graft rate (0.23% versus 0.69%, P =0.046) and higher repeat target vessel PCI rates (12.1% versus 9.0%, P =0.003). For patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI, P-PCI centers had higher in-hospital mortality (28.5% versus 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.75). Conclusions— No differences between P-PCI centers and full service centers were found in in-hospital/30-day mortality, the need for emergency surgery, 3-year mortality or subsequent revascularization, but P-PCI centers had higher repeat target vessel PCI rates and higher mortality rates for patients who did not undergo PCI. P-PCI centers should be monitored closely, including the monitoring of patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI.