CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 2-Year Clinical Outcomes: From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study 2017 ACC/AHA Blood Pressure Treatment Guideline Recommendations and Cardiovascular Risk Effectiveness-Based Guidelines for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Women—2011 Update: A Guideline From the American Heart Association Qualitative and Mixed Methods Provide Unique Contributions to Outcomes Research

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.