Antithrombotic Therapy and Outcomes After ICD Implantation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease: An Analysis From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)®

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112259/1/jah3831.pd

Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139090/1/jah32022_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139090/2/jah32022.pd

Patient and Physician Predictors of FFR/iFR Utilization in ACS and SIHD

Background Despite guidelines supporting FFR/iFR to guide PCI, these modalities remain underutilized. We sought to characterize factors associated with FFR/iFR use in patients undergoing index PCI for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Methods ICD-9/10 codes were used to identify patients undergoing PCI and receiving FFR/iFR for an ACS (n=1,042,896) or SIHD (n=255,213) in a Medicare claims database from Jan. 1, 2013-June 30, 2018. Patients with functional/anatomical testing were excluded (5d prior in ACS; 60d prior in SIHD). Individuals with FFR/iFR performed 1-60 days prior to PCI were also excluded to limit analysis to non-staged procedures. Results FFR/iFR was performed the same day as PCI in 5.9% and 11.5% of patients with an ACS and SIHD, respectively. FFR/iFR was less likely to be utilized in patients that were \u3e65 years, male, and in those with diabetes, chronic kidney disease or peripheral arterial disease. Of note, a substantial proportion of physicians were non-utilizers of FFR/iFR in ACS (23.9%) and SIHD (18.6%). Use of FFR/iFR was inversely correlated with years since medical school graduation, with the lowest rate observed in physicians \u3e=31 years since graduation (Table). Conclusion This analysis highlights the underutilization of FFR/iFR. Identification of patient- and physician-factors associated with lower rates of FFR/iFR can be helpful to target areas for improvement to increase implementation of this guideline-recommended intervention

Clinical Prediction Model Suitable for Assessing Hospital Quality for Patients Undergoing Carotid Endarterectomy

Background: Assessing hospital quality in the performance of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) requires appropriate risk adjustment across hospitals with varying case mixes. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a prediction model to assess the risk of in‐hospital stroke or death after CEA that could aid in the assessment of hospital quality. Methods and Results: Patients from National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)'s Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy (CARE) Registry undergoing CEA without acute evolving stroke from 2005 to 2013 were included. In‐hospital stroke or death was modeled using hierarchical logistic regression with 20 candidate variables and accounting for hospital‐level clustering. Internal validation was achieved with bootstrapping; model discrimination and calibration were assessed. A total of 213 (1.7%) primary end point events occurred during 12 889 procedures. Independent predictors of stroke or death included age, prior peripheral artery disease, diabetes mellitus, prior coronary artery disease, having a symptomatic carotid lesion, having a contralateral carotid occlusion, or having New York Heart Association Class III or IV heart failure. The model was well calibrated and demonstrated moderate discriminative ability (c‐statistic 0.65). The NCDR CEA score was then developed to support simple, prospective risk quantification in the clinical setting. Conclusions: The NCDR CEA score, comprising 7 clinical variables, predicts in‐hospital stroke or death after CEA. This model can be used to estimate hospital risk‐adjusted outcomes for CEA and to assist with the assessment of hospital quality

Hospital Variability in Use of Anticoagulant Strategies During Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With an Early Invasive Strategy

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139118/1/jah31000.pd

Use of mechanical circulatory support devices among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Importance: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock despite limited evidence of their clinical benefit. Objective: To examine trends in the use of MCS devices among patients who underwent PCI for AMI with cardiogenic shock, hospital-level use variation, and factors associated with use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the CathPCI and Chest Pain-MI Registries of the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, were identified from both registries. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2020. Exposures: Therapies to provide hemodynamic support were categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, or another MCS device), or medical therapy only. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use. Results: Among the 28 304 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.6) years and 18 968 were men (67.0%). The overall MCS device use was constant from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2017, although use of intravascular microaxial LVADs significantly increased (from 4.1% to 9.8%; P \u3c .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P \u3c .001). A significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use was found. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) proportion of patients who received MCS devices was 42% (30%-54%), and the median proportion of patients who received intravascular microaxial LVADs was 1% (0%-10%). In multivariable analyses, cardiac arrest at first medical contact or during hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.09) and severe left main and/or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.54) were patient characteristics that were associated with higher odds of receiving intravascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, among patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, overall use of MCS devices was constant, and a 2.5-fold increase in intravascular microaxial LVAD use was found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use. These trends were observed despite limited clinical trial evidence of improved outcomes associated with device use

Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background Standardization of risk is critical in benchmarking and quality improvement efforts for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). In 2018, the CathPCI Registry was updated to include additional variables to better classify higher-risk patients. Objectives We 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 7/2018-6/2019 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 (70%, n=495,005) and validation cohort (30%, n=211,258). We 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%-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