Krumholz, Harlan M.

ABSTRACTObjectivesIdentifying the distributions and determinants of fluoroscopy time for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundICA and PCI are significant contributors to radiation exposure from medical imaging in the US. Fluoroscopy time is a potentially modifiable determinant of radiation exposure for these procedures, but has not been well characterized in contemporary practice.MethodsWe evaluated the distribution of fluoroscopy time in patients undergoing ICA and/or PCI in the CathPCI Registry®, stratifying patients by numerous clinical scenarios. Hierarchical models were used to determine patient, procedure, operator and hospital‐level factors associated with fluoroscopy time for these procedures.ResultsOur study included a total of 3,295,348 ICA and PCI procedures performed by 9,600 operators from January 2005 through June 2009. There was wide variation in fluoroscopy times for these procedures with median [IQR] fluoroscopy times of 2.6 [1.7–4.5] minutes for ICA, 6.7 [4.2–10.8] minutes for ICA in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 10.1 [6.0–17.4] minutes for PCI, 10.7 [7.0–16.9] minutes for PCI with ICA, and 16.0 [10.6–24.0] minutes for PCI and ICA in patients with prior CABG. Prolonged fluoroscopy times (>30 minutes) were rare for ICA, but occurred in 6.7% of PCIs and 14.7% of PCIs in patients with prior CABG. After accounting for patient characteristics and procedure complexity, operator and hospital‐level factors explained nearly 20% of the variation in fluoroscopy time.ConclusionsFluoroscopy times vary widely during ICA and PCI with operator and hospital‐level factors contributing substantially to these differences. A better understanding of potentially modifiable sources of this variation will elucidate opportunities for enhancing the radiation safety of these procedures. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background— Clinical trials have shown that statin therapy reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), even among patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels <100 mg/dL. We sought to determine the extent to which patients with obstructive CAD in routine outpatient care are treated with statins, nonstatins, or no lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results— Within the American College of Cardiology's Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) outpatient registry, we examined rates of treatment with statin and nonstatin medications in 38 775 outpatients with obstructive CAD (history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization) and without documented contraindications to statin therapy. Among these patients, 30 160 (77.8%) were prescribed statins, 2042 (5.3%) were treated only with nonstatin lipid-lowering medications, and 6573 (17.0%) were untreated. Lack of medical insurance was associated with no statin treatment, and male sex, coexisting hypertension, and a recent coronary revascularization were associated with statin treatment. Among those not on any lipid-lowering therapy, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were available for 51.2% (3365/6573). Among these untreated patients, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were <100 mg/dL in 1794 patients (53.3%) and ≥100 mg/dL in 1571 patients (46.7%). Conclusions— Despite robust clinical trial evidence, a substantial number of patients with obstructive CAD remain untreated with statins. A small proportion were treated with nonstatin therapy, and 1 in 6 patients was simply untreated; half of the untreated patients had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values <100 mg/dL. These findings illustrate important opportunities to improve lipid management in outpatients with obstructive CAD.