Hospital-Level Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Performance With Simulated Risk Avoidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 78 (22) ◽  
pp. 2213-2217
Author(s):  
Ashwin S. Nathan ◽  
Pratik Manandhar ◽  
Daniel Wojdyla ◽  
Adam Nelson ◽  
Paul N. Fiorilli ◽  
...  
Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Roe ◽  
William French ◽  
Anne Hellkamp ◽  
Laine Thomas ◽  
Eric Bates ◽  
...  

Background: Regional ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) networks have been established to improve timely access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States, but the assessment of hospital-level performance in this setting is challenging due to the stratification of reperfusion timing metrics by initial mode of patient presentation. Methods: We developed a new hospital-level time-to-treatment metric for primary PCI at 588 PCI-capable hospitals (>40 patients/yr) participating in the AHA Mission: Lifeline® program from 2007[[Unable to Display Character: –]]2013. Patients were categorized as Group 1: Self or ambulance transport with no pre-hospital electrocardiogram (ECG), Group 2: Ambulance transport with ST-elevation on a pre-hospital ECG, and Group 3: Inter-hospital transfer with ST-elevation on an ECG at the referring hospital. Timing metrics for these populations were 1: Door-to-device time, 2: First medical contact-to-device time, 3: First door-to-device time, respectively. Patient times were converted to minutes ahead or behind of their group-specific mean, and overall hospital performance was measured by taking the mean time for all STEMI patients at a given site (using the new “centered time-to-device” metric with negative values behind the mean representing longer time intervals). Results: A total of 120,208 STEMI patients were evaluated across 588 hospitals with a median number of 85 (25 th , 75 th percentiles: 61, 128) patients/hospital/year. The median hospital-level proportion of patients in Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 46%, 33%, and 20%, respectively. Significant differences in time-to-treatment and “centered time-to-device” were seen from lowest to highest hospital tertiles (Table). Conclusions: A new, comprehensive hospital-level assessment of time-to-treatment for primary PCI that accounts for all STEMI patients treated at a given hospital, regardless of mode of presentation, reliably distinguished top-performing hospitals.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jae-Hyung Roh ◽  
Jihyun Sohn ◽  
Jae-Hwan Lee ◽  
In-Sun Kwon ◽  
Hanbyul Lee ◽  
...  

AbstractThis study sought to determine hospital variation in the use of follow-up stress testing (FUST) and invasive coronary angiography (FUCAG) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The claims records of 150,580 Korean patients who received PCI in 128 hospitals between 2008 and 2015 were analyzed. Patient were considered to have undergone FUST and FUCAG, when these testings were performed within two years after discharge from the index hospitalization. Hierarchical generalized linear and frailty models were used to evaluate binary and time-to-event outcomes. Hospital-level risk-standardized FUCAG and FUST rates were highly variable across the hospitals (median, 0.41; interquartile range [IQR], 0.27–0.59; median, 0.22; IQR, 0.08–0.39, respectively). The performances of various models predicting the likelihood of FUCAG and FUST were compared, and the best performance was observed with the models adjusted for patient case mix and individual hospital effects as random effects (receiver operating characteristic curves, 0.72 for FUCAG; 0.82 for FUST). The intraclass correlation coefficients of the models (0.41 and 0.68, respectively) indicated that a considerable proportion of the observed variation was related to individual institutional effects. Higher hospital-level FUCAG and FUST rates were not preventive of death or myocardial infarction. Increased repeat revascularizations were observed in hospitals with higher FUCAG rates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document