Search

Public reporting of health care data continues to proliferate as consumers and other stakeholders seek information on the quality and outcomes of care. Medicare's Hospital Compare website, the U.S. News & World Report hospital rankings, and several state-level programs are well known. Many rely heavily on administrative data as a surrogate to reflect clinical reality. Clinical data are traditionally more difficult and costly to collect, but more accurately reflect patients' clinical status, thus enhancing the validity of quality metrics. We describe the public reporting effort being launched by the American College of Cardiology and partnering professional organizations using clinical data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) programs. This hospital-level voluntary effort will initially report process of care measures from the percutaneous coronary intervention (CathPCI) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registries of the NCDR. Over time, additional process, outcomes, and composite performance metrics will be reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public reporting of hospital and individual provider quality of care measures is not a new concept. In the United States, the first national public reports of hospital mortality data occurred in 1986, and detailed physician-level data for cardiac surgery are now reported in 4 states. The development of the “Hospital Compare,” and more recently, the “Physician Compare” websites has further expanded public reporting for hospitals and providers. Several professional organizations, including the American Medical Association, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American College of Cardiology, have published policy statements articulating key principles to guide the public reporting process. Despite the rapid proliferation of public reporting efforts, more research is needed to better define meaningful measures to report and fully understand the impact of public reporting on healthcare delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to provide a report to the public of data from the CathPCI Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Background: The CathPCI Registry collects data from approximately 85% of the cardiac catheterization laboratories in the United States. Methods: Data were summarized for 6 consecutive calendar quarters beginning January 1, 2010, and ending June 30, 2011. This report includes 1,110,150 patients undergoing only diagnostic cardiac catheterization and 941,248 undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Results: Some notable findings include, for example, that on-site cardiac surgery was not available in 83% of facilities performing fewer than 200 PCIs annually, with these facilities representing 32.6% of the facilities reporting, but performing only 12.4% of the PCIs in this data sample. Patients 65 years of age or older represented 38.7% of those undergoing PCI, with 12.3% being 80 years of age or older. Almost 80% of PCI patients were overweight (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2), 80% had dyslipidemia, and 27.6% were current or recent smokers. Among patients undergoing elective PCI, 52% underwent a stress study before the procedure, with stress myocardial perfusion being used most frequently. Calcium scores and coronary computed tomography angiography were used very infrequently (<3%) before diagnostic or PCI procedures. Radial artery access was used in 8.3% of diagnostic and 6.9% of PCI procedures. Primary PCI was performed with a median door-to-balloon time of 64.5 min for nontransfer patients and 121 min for transfer patients. In-hospital risk-adjusted mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients was 5.2% in this sample. Conclusions: Data from the CathPCI Registry provide a contemporary view of the current practice of invasive cardiology in the United States. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Standardization of risk is critical in benchmarking and quality improvement efforts for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). In 2018, the CathPCI Registry was updated to include additional variables to better classify higher-risk patients.Objectives: This study sought to develop a model for predicting in-hospital mortality risk following PCI incorporating these additional variables.Methods: Data from 706,263 PCIs performed between July 2018 and June 2019 at 1,608 sites were used to develop and validate a new full and pre-catheterization model to predict in-hospital mortality, and a simplified bedside risk score. The sample was randomly split into a development cohort (70%, n = 495,005) and a validation cohort (30%, n = 211,258). The authors created 1,000 bootstrapped samples of the development cohort and used stepwise selection logistic regression on each sample. The final model included variables that were selected in at least 70% of the bootstrapped samples and those identified a priori due to clinical relevance.Results: In-hospital mortality following PCI varied based on clinical presentation. Procedural urgency, cardiovascular instability, and level of consciousness after cardiac arrest were most predictive of in-hospital mortality. The full model performed well, with excellent discrimination (C-index: 0.943) in the validation cohort and good calibration across different clinical and procedural risk cohorts. The median hospital risk-standardized mortality rate was 1.9% and ranged from 1.1% to 3.3% (interquartile range: 1.7% to 2.1%).Conclusions: The risk of mortality following PCI can be predicted in contemporary practice by incorporating variables that reflect clinical acuity. This model, which includes data previously not captured, is a valid instrument for risk stratification and for quality improvement efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) developed the Data Quality Program to meet the objectives of ensuring the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of data submitted to the observational clinical registries. The Data Quality Program consists of 3 main components: 1) a data quality report; 2) a set of internal quality assurance protocols; and 3) a yearly data audit program. Background: Since its inception in 1997, the NCDR has been the basis for the development of performance and quality metrics, site-level quality improvement programs, and peer-reviewed health outcomes research. Methods: Before inclusion in the registry, data are filtered through the registry-specific algorithms that require predetermined levels of completeness and consistency for submitted data fields as part of the data quality report. Internal quality assurance protocols enforce data standards before reporting. Within each registry, 300 to 625 records are audited annually in 25 randomly identified sites (i.e., 12 to 25 records per audited site). Results: In the 2010 audits, the participant average raw accuracy of data abstraction for the CathPCI Registry, ICD Registry, and ACTION Registry-GWTG were, respectively, 93.1% (range, 89.4% minimum, 97.4% maximum), 91.2% (range, 83.7% minimum, 95.7% maximum), and 89.7.% (range, 85% minimum, 95% maximum). Conclusions: The 2010 audits provided evidence that many fields in the NCDR accurately represent the data from the medical charts. The American College of Cardiology Foundation is undertaking a series of initiatives aimed at creating a quality assurance rapid learning system, which, when complete, will monitor, evaluate, and improve data quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intense investigation continues on the pathobiology of stent thrombosis (ST) because of its morbidity and mortality. Because little advance has been made in outcomes following ST, ongoing research is focused on further understanding predictive factors as well as ST frequency and timing in various patient subsets, depending upon whether a drug-eluting stent or bare-metal stent has been implanted. Although the preventive role of antiplatelet therapies remains unchallenged, new data on genomics and variability in response to antiplatelet therapy, as well as the effects of novel therapeutic agents and duration of therapy, have become available. The goal remains identification of patients at particularly increased risk of ST so that optimal prevention strategies can be developed and employed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]