Search

Importance: In hospitals outside of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system, 1 in 10 percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) for stable coronary artery disease is considered rarely appropriate by the appropriate use criteria, with variation across hospitals. The appropriateness of PCIs in VA hospitals has not been documented., Objective: To characterize the appropriateness of PCIs in VA hospitals., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI from November 1, 2013, to October 31, 2015, within the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program, an operational program that includes 59 VA hospitals. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2019, to August 8, 2019., Exposures: Elective PCI at a VA hospital., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of PCIs classified as appropriate, may be appropriate, or rarely appropriate; extent of hospital-level variation in rarely appropriate PCIs using criteria issued by cardiovascular professional societies in 2012. The extent of hospital-level variation in rates of rarely appropriate PCI was characterized using hospital proportions and random-effect logistic regression., Results: Among 2611 patients undergoing elective PCI (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [7.6] years; 2577 [98.7%] men) at 59 hospitals, a total of 778 PCIs (29.8%) were classified as appropriate, 1561 PCIs (59.8%) were classified as may be appropriate, and 272 PCIs (10.4%) were classified as rarely appropriate. Rarely appropriate PCIs were more commonly performed in patients who had low-risk stress test findings (220 patients [89.1%]), who were taking no (100 patients [36.8%]) or 1 (167 patients [61.4%]) antianginal medication, or who had 1 coronary artery stenosis (185 patients [68.0%]). The unadjusted hospital-level rates of rarely appropriate PCIs ranged from 0% to 28.6%, with a median (interquartile range) of 9.7% (6.3%-13.9%). Random-effect models yielded an estimated median (interquartile range) rate of rarely appropriate PCI of 10.4% (8.7%-12.3%)., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that in VA practice, most PCIs for stable coronary artery disease were classified as appropriate or may be appropriate. However, 1 in 10 PCIs was classified as rarely appropriate, with variation across VA hospitals. Efforts to improve patient selection are needed.

Importance: Peer review is recommended for quality assessment in all cardiac catheterization programs, but, to our knowledge, the content of peer reviews and the potential for quality improvement has not been described., Objective: To characterize the quality improvement content of cardiac catheterization peer reviews., Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study used retrospective case review of diagnostic angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures to characterize the major adverse event review process of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) program from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016. Data review and analysis took place from November 2017 to August 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of peer reviews reporting substandard care and opportunities for quality improvement., Results: A total of 196 643 diagnostic coronary angiograms and 62 576 percutaneous coronary interventions were performed in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of these, 168 (0.1%) were triggered for review because of a self-reported major adverse event during the procedure. Of 152 cases with complete peer review data, care was adjudicated as not meeting the standard of care in 25 cases (16.4%). Concerns about operator judgment were identified in 46 cases (30.3%), about case selection in 26 (17.1%), about trainee supervision in 21 (13.8%), and about technical performance in 46 (30.3%). Reviewers made recommendations to improve operator performance in 63 cases (41.4%) and catheterization laboratory or hospital processes in 58 (38.2%)., Conclusions and Relevance: While substandard care is infrequently identified in peer review of catheterization laboratory complications in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the process often generates recommendations for quality improvement. Peer review programs should focus on identifying quality improvement opportunities and providing meaningful feedback to operators.

Importance: Intensive care unit (ICU) utilization may have important implications for the care and outcomes of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)., Objectives: To examine interhospital variation in ICU utilization in the United States for older adults with hemodynamically stable NSTEMI and outcomes associated with ICU utilization among patients with low, moderate, or high mortality risk., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a retrospective analysis of 28 018 Medicare patients 65 years or older admitted with NSTEMI to 346 hospitals participating in the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network (ACTION)-Get With the Guidelines from April 1, 2011, through December 31, 2012. Patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest on presentation were excluded. Data analysis was performed from May 7 through October 8, 2015., Exposures: Hospitals with high (>70% of patients with NSTEMI treated in an ICU during the index hospitalization), intermediate (30%-70%), or low (<30%) ICU utilization., Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day mortality., Results: Of 28 018 patients with NSTEMI 65 years or older (median age, 77 years [interquartile range, 71-84 years]; female, 13 055 [46.6%]; nonwhite race, 3931 [14.0%]), 11 934 (42.6%) had an ICU stay. The proportion of patients with NSTEMI treated in the ICU varied across hospitals (median, 38%; interquartile range, 26%-54%), but no significant differences were found in hospital or patient characteristics among high, intermediate, or low ICU utilization hospitals. Compared with high ICU utilization hospitals, low or intermediate ICU utilization hospitals were only marginally more selective of higher-risk patients, as determined by ACTION in-hospital mortality risk score or initial troponin level. The median ACTION risk score for patients treated in the ICU at low and intermediate ICU utilization hospitals was 34 compared with 33 for patients not treated in the ICU; at high ICU utilization hospitals, the median ACTION mortality risk score was 33 for patients treated in the ICU and 34 for patients not treated in the ICU. Thirty-day mortality rates did not significantly differ based on hospital ICU utilization (high vs low: 8.7% vs 8.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76-1.08; intermediate vs low: 9.6% vs 8.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.20). The association between hospital ICU utilization and mortality did not change when considered among patients with ACTION risk scores greater than 40, 30 to 40, and less than 30 (adjusted interaction P = .86)., Conclusions and Relevance: Utilization of the ICU for older patients with NSTEMI varied significantly among hospitals. This variability was not explained by hospital characteristics or driven by patient risk. Mortality after myocardial infarction did not significantly differ among high, intermediate, or low ICU utilization hospitals.

Importance: Patients with dual Medicare-Medicaid eligibility have a higher burden of chronic disease conditions and increased health care utilization compared with patients with Medicare coverage alone, but the treatment patterns and outcomes of dual-eligible patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are unknown., Objective: To examine the association of dual-eligible status with clinical outcomes and adherence to medication regimens (hereinafter "medication adherence") among older adults after MI., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective study conducted from February 2015 to April 2016, we linked patients 65 years or older enrolled in a national myocardial infarction registry (the Acute Coronary Treatment Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines [ACTION Registry-GWTG]) from July 1, 2007, to December 31, 2009, to Medicare claims data to obtain 1-year follow-up and medication adherence data. The ACTION Registry-GWTG is the largest quality-improvement registry of patients with MI in the United States. Included patients were all 65 years or older; had Medicare Parts A, B, and D; presented with MI; and survived to hospital discharge., Exposures: Dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility., Main Outcomes and Measures: Death, readmission, major adverse cardiovascular events (death, recurrent MI, stroke), and medication adherence at 1 year., Results: Of 17 419 Medicare patients discharged alive after MI, 4674 (27%) were dual eligible. Dual-eligible patients were more likely to be female (64% vs 49%) and nonwhite (29% vs 6%), with a higher prevalence of comorbid conditions and more frequent presentation with non-ST elevation MI (non-STEMI) (75% vs 69%). Dual-eligible patients were less likely to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI (77% vs 81%), revascularization for non-STEMI (58% vs 65%), and prescription of secondary prevention medications at discharge. After multivariable adjustment, dual eligibility status was associated with a higher risk of readmission at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26), death at 1 year (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.36), and major adverse cardiac events at 1 year (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.31). Dual-eligible patients had higher 1-year adherence to medications prescribed at discharge (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.39-1.74) than Medicare-only patients., Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with Medicare-only patients, older adults with dual Medicare-Medicaid eligibility presenting with MI have superior rates of medication adherence but higher rates of postdischarge readmission and adverse cardiovascular outcomes.