CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

推荐文献

科研文章

荐读文献

Heart Failure With Preserved, Borderline, and Reduced Ejection Fraction: 5-Year Outcomes Impact of Coronary Lesion Complexity in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: One-Year Outcomes From the Large, Multicentre e-Ultimaster Registry Dynamic atrioventricular delay programming improves ventricular electrical synchronization as evaluated by 3D vectorcardiography Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial Best Practices for the Prevention of Radial Artery Occlusion After Transradial Diagnostic Angiography and Intervention An International Consensus Paper Appropriate Use Criteria and Health Status Outcomes Following Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the OPEN-CTO Registry The Astronaut Cardiovascular Health and Risk Modification (Astro-CHARM) Coronary Calcium Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Calculator Individualizing Revascularization Strategy for Diabetic Patients With Multivessel Coronary Disease The Prognostic Value of Exercise Echocardiography After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Original Research2018 Oct 1;92(4):644-650.

JOURNAL:Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

When high‐volume PCI operators in high‐volume hospitals move to lower volume hospitals—Do they still maintain high volume and quality of outcomes?

Lu TH, Li ST, Yin WH et al. Keywords: percutaneous coronary intervention; utilization; volume

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - The aim of this quasi-experimental study was to examine whether high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) operators still maintain high volume and quality of outcomes when they moved to lower volume hospitals.


BACKGROUND - Systematic reviews have indicated that high-volume PCI operators and hospitals have higher quality outcomes. However, little is known on whether high PCI volume and high quality outcomes are mainly due to operator characteristics (i.e., skill and experience) and is portable across organizations or whether it is due to hospital characteristics (i.e., equipment, team, and management system) and is less portable.


METHODS - We used Taiwan National Health Insurance claims data 2000-2012 to identify 98 high-volume PCI operators, 10 of whom moved from one hospital to another during the study period. We compared the PCI volume, risk-adjusted mortality ratio, and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) ratio before and after moving.


RESULTS - Of the 10 high-volume operators who moved, 6 moved from high- to moderate- or low-volume hospitals, with median annual PCI volumes (interquartile range) of 130 (117-165) in prior hospitals and 54 (46-84) in subsequent hospitals (the hospital the operator moved to), and the remaining 4 moved from high to high-volume hospitals, with median annual PCI volumes (interquartile range) of 151 (133-162) in prior hospitals and 193 (178-239) in subsequent hospitals. No significant differences were observed in the risk-adjusted mortality ratios and MACE ratios between high-volume operators and matched controls before and after moving.


CONCLUSIONS - High-volume operators cannot maintain high volume when they moved from high to moderate or low-volume hospitals; however, the quality of care is maintained. High PCI volume and high-quality outcomes are less portable and more hospital bound.