Search

Background: Stroke is a common and important adverse event after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the elderly. It is unclear whether the risk of stroke after AMI has changed with improvements in treatments and outcomes for AMI in the last decade., Methods: To assess trends in risk of stroke after AMI, we used a national sample of Medicare data to identify Fee-for-Service patients (n = 2,305,441) aged ≥65 years who were discharged alive after hospitalization for AMI from 1999 to 2010., Results: We identified 57,848 subsequent hospitalizations for ischemic stroke and 4,412 hospitalizations for hemorrhagic stroke within 1 year after AMI. The 1-year rate of ischemic stroke decreased from 3.4% (95% CI 3.3%-3.4%) to 2.6% (2.5%-2.7%; P < .001). The risk-adjusted annual decline was 3% (hazard ratio, 0.97; [0.97-0.98]) and was similar across all age and sex-race groups. The rate of hemorrhagic stroke remained stable at 0.2% and did not differ by subgroups. The 30-day mortality for patients admitted with ischemic stroke after AMI decreased from 19.9% (18.8%-20.9%) to 18.3% (17.1%-19.6%) and from 48.3% (43.0%-53.6%) to 45.7% (40.3%-51.2%) for those admitted with hemorrhagic stroke. We observed a decrease in 1-year mortality from 37.8% (36.5%-39.1%) to 35.3% (33.8%-36.8%) for ischemic stroke and from 66.6% (61.4%-71.5%) to 60.6% (55.1%-65.9%) for hemorrhagic stroke., Conclusions: From 1999 to 2010, the 1-year risk for ischemic stroke after AMI declined, whereas the risk of hemorrhagic stroke remained unchanged. However, 30-day and 1-year mortality continued to be high., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are few data characterizing temporal changes in hospitalization for recurrent acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after AMI., Methods and Results: Using a national sample of 2 305 441 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI from 1999 to 2010, we evaluated changes in the incidence of 1-year recurrent AMI hospitalization and mortality using Cox proportional hazards models. The observed recurrent AMI hospitalization rate declined from 12.1% (95% CI 11.9 to 12.2) in 1999 to 8.9% (95% CI 8.8 to 9.1) in 2010, a relative decline of 26.4%. The observed recurrent AMI hospitalization rate declined by a relative 27.7% in whites, from 11.9% (95% CI 11.8 to 12.1) to 8.6% (95% CI 8.5 to 8.8) versus a relative decline in blacks of 13.6% from 13.2% (95% CI 12.6 to 13.8) to 11.4% (95% CI 10.9 to 12.0). The risk-adjusted rate of annual decline in recurrent AMI hospitalizations was 4.1% (HR 0.959; 95% CI 0.958 to 0.961), and whites experienced a higher rate of decline (HR 0.957, 95% CI 0.956 to 0.959) than blacks (HR 0.974, 95% CI 0.970 to 0.979).The overall, observed 1-year mortality rate after hospitalization for recurrent AMI declined from 32.4% in 1999 to 29.7% in 2010, a relative decline of 8.3% (P<0.05). In adjusted analyses, 1-year mortality after recurrent AMI hospitalization declined 1.8% per year (HR, 0.982; 95% CI 0.980 to 0.985)., Conclusions: In a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI from 1999 to 2010, hospitalization for recurrent AMI decreased, as did subsequent mortality, albeit to a lesser extent. The risk of recurrent AMI hospitalization declined less in black patients than in whites, increasing observed racial disparities by the end of the study period., (© 2014 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Background: Previous studies have reported conflicting findings regarding how the incidence of heart failure (HF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has changed over time, and data on contemporary national trends are sparse., Methods and Results: Using a complete national sample of 2 789 943 AMI hospitalizations of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 1998 through 2010, we evaluated annual changes in the incidence of subsequent HF hospitalization and mortality using Poisson and survival analysis models. The number of patients hospitalized for HF within 1 year after AMI declined modestly from 16.1 per 100 person-years in 1998 to 14.2 per 100 person years in 2010 (P<0.001). After adjusting for demographic factors, a relative 14.6% decline for HF hospitalizations after AMI was observed over the study period (incidence risk ratio, 0.854; 95% confidence interval, 0.809-0.901). Unadjusted 1-year mortality following HF hospitalization after AMI was 44.4% in 1998, which decreased to 43.2% in 2004 to 2005, but then increased to 45.5% by 2010. After adjusting for demographic factors and clinical comorbidities, this represented a 2.4% relative annual decline (hazard ratio, 0.976; 95% confidence interval, 0.974-0.978) from 1998 to 2007, but a 5.1% relative annual increase from 2007 to 2010 (hazard ratio, 1.051; 95% confidence interval, 1.039-1.064)., Conclusions: In a national sample of Medicare beneficiaries, HF hospitalization after AMI decreased from 1998 to 2010, which may indicate improvements in the management of AMI. In contrast, survival after HF following AMI remains poor, and has worsened from 2007 to 2010, demonstrating that challenges still remain for the treatment of this high-risk condition after AMI.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services publicly reports hospital 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) and 30-day, all-cause, risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. The evaluation of hospital performance as measured by RSMRs and RSRRs has not been well characterized., Objective: To determine the relationship between hospital RSMRs and RSRRs overall and within subgroups defined by hospital characteristics., Design, Setting, and Participants: We studied Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged with acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008 (4506 hospitals for acute myocardial infarction, 4767 hospitals for heart failure, and 4811 hospitals for pneumonia). We quantified the correlation between hospital RSMRs and RSRRs using weighted linear correlation; evaluated correlations in groups defined by hospital characteristics; and determined the proportion of hospitals with better and worse performance on both measures., Main Outcome Measures: Hospital 30-day RSMRs and RSRRs., Results: Mean RSMRs and RSRRs, respectively, were 16.60% and 19.94% for acute myocardial infarction, 11.17% and 24.56% for heart failure, and 11.64% and 18.22% for pneumonia. The correlations between RSMRs and RSRRs were 0.03 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.06) for acute myocardial infarction, -0.17 (95% CI, -0.20 to -0.14) for heart failure, and 0.002 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.03) for pneumonia. The results were similar for subgroups defined by hospital characteristics. Although there was a significant negative linear relationship between RSMRs and RSRRs for heart failure, the shared variance between them was only 2.9% (r2 = 0.029), with the correlation most prominent for hospitals with RSMR <11%., Conclusion and Relevance: Risk-standardized mortality rates and readmission rates were not associated for patients admitted with an acute myocardial infarction or pneumonia and were only weakly associated, within a certain range, for patients admitted with heart failure.

Rates of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalizations for elderly Medicare patients decreased during the previous decade. However, trends in population rates of AMI hospitalizations for all adults by subgroups have not been described. Using data from a large all-payer administrative database of hospitalizations, we calculated annual AMI hospitalization rates from 2001 through 2007. Trend analysis was performed across age, gender, and ethnicity categories using survey regression. Overall rate decreased from 314 to 222 AMI hospitalizations per 100,000 patients from 2001 through 2007, representing a 29.2% decrease. Significant decreases were observed in AMI hospitalization rate for each group by age categories (p <0.001) and by gender (p <0.001). When stratified by ethnicity and gender, age-adjusted AMI hospitalization rates in white men and women decreased by 30.8% and 31.4%, whereas black men and women had significantly slower rates of decrease of 13.6% and 12.6%, respectively. In conclusion, although the overall rate of AMI hospitalizations decreased from 2001 through 2007, the observed decrease was smaller for black patients compared to white patients across all age groups studied., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Substantial hospital-level variation in the risk of readmission after hospitalization for heart failure (HF) or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been reported. Prior studies have documented considerable state-level variation in rates of discharge to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), but evaluation of hospital-level variation in SNF rates and its relationship to hospital-level readmission rates is limited., Methods: Hospital-level 30-day all-cause risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) were calculated using claims data for fee-for-service Medicare patients hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of HF or AMI from 2006-2008. Medicare claims were used to calculate rates of discharge to SNF following HF-specific or AMI-specific admissions in hospitals with ≥25 HF or AMI patients, respectively. Weighted regression was used to quantify the relationship between RSRRs and SNF rates for each condition., Results: Mean RSRR following HF admission among 4101 hospitals was 24.7%, and mean RSRR after AMI admission among 2453 hospitals was 19.9%. Hospital-level SNF rates ranged from 0% to 83.8% for HF and from 0% to 77.8% for AMI. No significant relationship between RSRR after HF and SNF rate was found in adjusted regression models (P=.15). RSRR after AMI increased by 0.03 percentage point for each 1 absolute percentage point increase in SNF rate in adjusted regression models (P=.001). Overall, HF and AMI SNF rates explained <1% and 4% of the variation for their respective RSRRs., Conclusion: SNF rates after HF or AMI hospitalization vary considerably across hospitals, but explain little of the variation in 30-day all-cause readmission rates for these conditions., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The association between hospital volume and the death rate for patients who are hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia remains unclear. It is also not known whether a volume threshold for such an association exists., Methods: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of data from Medicare administrative claims for all fee-for-service beneficiaries who were hospitalized between 2004 and 2006 in acute care hospitals in the United States for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. Using hierarchical logistic-regression models for each condition, we estimated the change in the odds of death within 30 days associated with an increase of 100 patients in the annual hospital volume. Analyses were adjusted for patients' risk factors and hospital characteristics. Bootstrapping procedures were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals to identify the condition-specific volume thresholds above which an increased volume was not associated with reduced mortality., Results: There were 734,972 hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction in 4128 hospitals, 1,324,287 for heart failure in 4679 hospitals, and 1,418,252 for pneumonia in 4673 hospitals. An increased hospital volume was associated with reduced 30-day mortality for all conditions (P<0.001 for all comparisons). For each condition, the association between volume and outcome was attenuated as the hospital's volume increased. For acute myocardial infarction, once the annual volume reached 610 patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 539 to 679), an increase in the hospital volume by 100 patients was no longer significantly associated with reduced odds of death. The volume threshold was 500 patients (95% CI, 433 to 566) for heart failure and 210 patients (95% CI, 142 to 284) for pneumonia., Conclusions: Admission to higher-volume hospitals was associated with a reduction in mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, although there was a volume threshold above which an increased condition-specific hospital volume was no longer significantly associated with reduced mortality., (2010 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: Amid recent efforts to reduce cardiovascular risk, whether rates of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the United States have declined for elderly patients is unknown., Methods and Results: Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized in the United States with a principal discharge diagnosis of AMI were identified through the use of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2002 to 2007, a time period selected to reduce changes arising from the new definition of AMI. The Medicare beneficiary denominator file was used to determine the population at risk. AMI hospitalization rates were calculated annually per 100,000 beneficiary-years with Poisson regression analysis and stratified according to age, sex, and race. The annual AMI hospitalization rate in the fee-for-service Medicare population fell from 1131 per 100,000 beneficiary-years in 2002 to 866 in 2007, a relative 23.4% decline. After adjustment for age, sex, and race, the AMI hospitalization rate declined by 5.8%/y. From 2002 to 2007, white men experienced a 24.4% decrease in AMI hospitalizations, whereas black men experienced a smaller decline (18.0%; P<0.001 for interaction). Black women had a smaller decline in AMI hospitalization rate compared with white women (18.4% versus 23.3%, respectively; P<0.001 for interaction)., Conclusions: AMI hospitalization rates fell markedly in the Medicare fee-for-service population between 2002 and 2007. However, black men and women appeared to have had a slower rate of decline compared with their white counterparts.

Background: There are increasing calls for regionalization of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care in the United States to hospitals with the capacity to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether regionalization will improve outcomes depends in part on the magnitude of existing differences in outcomes between PCI and non-PCI hospitals within the same health care region., Methods: A 100% sample of claims from Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years or older hospitalized for AMI between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2006, was used to calculate hospital-level, 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs). The RSMRs between PCI and local non-PCI hospitals were compared within local health care regions defined by hospital referral regions (HRRs)., Results: A total of 523 119 AMI patients was admitted to 1382 PCI hospitals, and 194 909 AMI patients were admitted to 2491 non-PCI hospitals in 295 HRRs with at least 1 PCI and 1 non-PCI hospital. Although PCI hospitals had lower RSMRs than non-PCI hospitals (mean, 16.1% vs 16.9%; P < .001), considerable overlap was seen in RSMRs between non-PCI and PCI hospitals within the same HRR. In 80 HRRs, the RSMRs at the best-performing PCI hospital were lower than those at local non-PCI hospitals by 3% or more. Among the remaining HRRs, the RSMRs at the best-performing PCI hospital were lower by 1.5% to 3.0% in 104 HRRs and by greater than 0 to 1.5% in 74 HRRs. In 37 HRRs, the RSMRs at the best-performing PCI hospital were no better or were higher than at local non-PCI hospitals., Conclusions: The magnitude of benefit from comprehensively regionalizing AMI care to PCI hospitals appears to vary greatly across HRRs. These findings support a tailored regionalization policy that targets areas with the greatest outcome differences between PCI and local non-PCI hospitals.

Background: In 2009, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is publicly reporting hospital-level risk-standardized 30-day mortality and readmission rates after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF). We provide patterns of hospital performance, based on these measures., Methods and Results: We calculated the 30-day mortality and readmission rates for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries ages 65 years or older with a primary diagnosis of AMI or HF, discharged between July 2005 and June 2008. We compared weighted risk-standardized mortality and readmission rates across Hospital Referral Regions and hospital structural characteristics. The median 30-day mortality rate was 16.6% for AMI (range, 10.9% to 24.9%; 25th to 75th percentile, 15.8% to 17.4%; 10th to 90th percentile, 14.7% to 18.4%) and 11.1% for HF (range, 6.6% to 19.8%; 25th to 75th percentile, 10.3% to 12.0%; 10th to 90th percentile, 9.4% to 13.1%). The median 30-day readmission rate was 19.9% for AMI (range, 15.3% to 29.4%; 25th to 75th percentile, 19.5% to 20.4%; 10th to 90th percentile, 18.8% to 21.1%) and 24.4% for HF (range, 15.9% to 34.4%; 25th to 75th percentile, 23.4% to 25.6%; 10th to 90th percentile, 22.3% to 27.0%). We observed geographic differences in performance across the country. Although there were some differences in average performance by hospital characteristics, there were high and low hospital performers among all types of hospitals., Conclusions: In a recent 3-year period, 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates for AMI and HF varied among hospitals and across the country. The readmission rates were particularly high.

Context: During the last 2 decades, health care professional, consumer, and payer organizations have sought to improve outcomes for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, little has been reported about improvements in hospital short-term mortality rates or reductions in between-hospital variation in short-term mortality rates., Objective: To estimate hospital-level 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) for patients discharged with AMI., Design, Setting, and Patients: Observational study using administrative data and a validated risk model to evaluate 3,195,672 discharges in 2,755,370 patients discharged from nonfederal acute care hospitals in the United States between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2006. Patients were 65 years or older (mean, 78 years) and had at least a 12-month history of fee-for-service enrollment prior to the index hospitalization. Patients discharged alive within 1 day of an admission not against medical advice were excluded, because it is unlikely that these patients had sustained an AMI., Main Outcome Measure: Hospital-specific 30-day all-cause RSMR., Results: At the patient level, the odds of dying within 30 days of admission if treated at a hospital 1 SD above the national average relative to that if treated at a hospital 1 SD below the national average were 1.63 (95% CI, 1.60-1.65) in 1995 and 1.56 (95% CI, 1.53-1.60) in 2006. In terms of hospital-specific RSMRs, a decrease from 18.8% in 1995 to 15.8% in 2006 was observed (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.75-0.77). A reduction in between-hospital heterogeneity in the RSMRs was also observed: the coefficient of variation decreased from 11.2% in 1995 to 10.8%, the interquartile range from 2.8% to 2.1%, and the between-hospital variance from 4.4% to 2.9%., Conclusion: Between 1995 and 2006, the risk-standardized hospital mortality rate for Medicare patients discharged with AMI showed a significant decrease, as did between-hospital variation.

Objective: To evaluate the association between door-to-balloon time and mortality in hospital in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction to assess the incremental mortality benefit of reductions in door-to-balloon times of less than 90 minutes., Design: Prospective cohort study of patients enrolled in the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2005-6., Setting: Acute care hospitals., Participants: 43 801 patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention., Main Outcome Measure: Mortality in hospital., Results: Median door-to-balloon time was 83 minutes (interquartile range 6-109, 57.9% treated within 90 minutes). Overall mortality in hospital was 4.6%. Multivariable logistic regression models with fractional polynomial models indicated that longer door-to-balloon times were associated with a higher adjusted risk of mortality in hospital in a continuous non-linear fashion (30 minutes=3.0%, 60 minutes=3.5%, 90 minutes=4.3%, 120 minutes=5.6%, 150 minutes=7.0%, 180 minutes=8.4%, P<0.001). A reduction in door-to-balloon time from 90 minutes to 60 minutes was associated with 0.8% lower mortality, and a reduction from 60 minutes to 30 minutes with a 0.5% lower mortality., Conclusion: Any delay in primary percutaneous coronary intervention after a patient arrives at hospital is associated with higher mortality in hospital in those admitted with ST elevation myocardial infarction. Time to treatment should be as short as possible, even in centres currently providing primary percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes.

Background: Patients and purchasers prefer board-certified physicians, but whether these physicians provide better quality of care and outcomes for hospitalized patients is unclear., Objective: We evaluated whether care by board-certified physicians after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was associated with higher use of clinical guideline recommended therapies and lower 30-day mortality., Subjects and Methods: We examined 101,251 Medicare patients hospitalized for AMI in the United States and compared use of aspirin, beta-blockers, and 30-day mortality according to the attending physicians' board certification in family practice, internal medicine, or cardiology., Results: Board-certified family practitioners had slightly higher use of aspirin (admission: 51.1% vs 46.0%; discharge: 72.2% vs 63.9%) and beta-blockers (admission: 44.1% vs 37.1%; discharge: 46.2% vs 38.7%) than nonboard-certified family practitioners. There was a similar pattern in board-certified Internists for aspirin (admission: 53.7% vs 49.6%; discharge: 78.2% vs 68.8%) and beta-blockers (admission: 48.9% vs 44.1%; discharge: 51.2% vs 47.1). Board-certified cardiologists had higher use of aspirin compared with cardiologists certified in internal medicine only or without any board certification (admission: 61.3% vs 53.1% vs 52.1%; discharge: 82.2% vs 71.8% vs 71.5%) and beta-blockers (admission: 52.9% vs 49.6% vs 41.5%; discharge: 54.7% vs 50.6% vs 42.5%). In multivariate regression analyses, board certification was not associated with differences in 30-day mortality., Conclusions: Treatment by a board-certified physician was associated with modestly higher quality of care for AMI, but not differences in mortality. Regardless of board certification, all physicians had opportunities to improve quality of care for AMI.

Background: Previous studies have reported that myocardial infarction (MI) treatment in New England differs from that of other regions of the United States. We sought to determine whether regional differences in MI treatment were independent of regional differences in patient, hospital, or physician characteristics, and whether the New England region's practice pattern was associated with better outcomes than those of patients in other regions., Methods: We evaluated 167,180 patients aged > or =65 years who were hospitalized with MI between 1994 to 1996 to assess regional variations in quality of care. Patients were evaluated for the use of reperfusion therapy, aspirin, and beta-blockers on admission and 30-day mortality rate. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to determine whether practice patterns specific to New England were independent of regional variations in patient, physician, hospital, or other geographic characteristics., Results: New England had the highest use of beta-blockers (72% vs 52% other regions, P <.001), and aspirin (80% vs 76% other regions, P <.001), a lower use of reperfusion therapy (61% vs 67% other regions, P <.001), and the lowest risk-standardized 30-day mortality rate (15% vs 19% other regions, P <.001). These differences persisted after adjusting for patient, physician, and hospital characteristics., Conclusions: Patients with MI in New England have higher rates of medical therapy use and lower 30-day mortality rates than patients in other US regions. This pattern is independent of patient or provider characteristics, suggesting other factors likely contribute to better short-term outcomes in New England.

We examined the association between JCAHO accreditation of hospitals, those hospitals' quality of care, and survival among Medicare patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction. Hospitals not surveyed by JCAHO had, on average, lower quality (less likely to use aspirin, beta-blockers, and reperfusion therapy) and higher thirty-day mortality rates than did surveyed hospitals. However, there was considerable variation within accreditation categories in quality of care and mortality among surveyed hospitals, which indicates that JCAHO accreditation levels have limited usefulness in distinguishing individual performance among accredited hospitals. These findings support current efforts to incorporate quality of care in accreditation decisions.

Context: Health care "report cards" have attracted significant consumer interest, particularly publicly available Internet health care quality rating systems. However, the ability of these ratings to discriminate between hospitals is not known., Objective: To determine whether hospital ratings for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) mortality from a prominent Internet hospital rating system accurately discriminate between hospitals' performance based on process of care and outcomes., Design, Setting, and Patients: Data from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project, a retrospective systematic medical record review of 141 914 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 65 years or older hospitalized with AMI at 3363 US acute care hospitals during a 4- to 8-month period between January 1994 and February 1996 were compared with ratings obtained from HealthGrades.com (1-star: worse outcomes than predicted, 5-star: better outcomes than predicted) based on 1994-1997 Medicare data., Main Outcome Measures: Quality indicators of AMI care, including use of acute reperfusion therapy, aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; 30-day mortality., Results: Patients treated at higher-rated hospitals were significantly more likely to receive aspirin (admission: 75.4% 5-star vs 66.4% 1-star, P for trend =.001; discharge: 79.7% 5-star vs 68.0% 1-star, P =.001) and beta-blockers (admission: 54.8% 5-star vs 35.7% 1-star, P =.001; discharge: 63.3% 5-star vs 52.1% 1-star, P =.001), but not angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (59.6% 5-star vs 57.4% 1-star, P =.40). Acute reperfusion therapy rates were highest for patients treated at 2-star hospitals (60.6%) and lowest for 5-star hospitals (53.6% 5-star, P =.008). Risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates were lower for patients treated at higher-rated than lower-rated hospitals (21.9% 1-star vs 15.9% 5-star, P =.001). However, there was marked heterogeneity within rating groups and substantial overlap of individual hospitals across rating strata for mortality and process of care; only 3.1% of comparisons between 1-star and 5-star hospitals had statistically lower risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates in 5-star hospitals. Similar findings were observed in comparisons of 30-day mortality rates between individual hospitals in all other rating groups and when comparisons were restricted to hospitals with a minimum of 30 cases during the study period., Conclusion: Hospital ratings published by a prominent Internet health care quality rating system identified groups of hospitals that, in the aggregate, differed in their quality of care and outcomes. However, the ratings poorly discriminated between any 2 individual hospitals' process of care or mortality rates during the study period. Limitations in discrimination may undermine the value of health care quality ratings for patients or payers and may lead to misperceptions of hospitals' performance.

Background: Patients and purchasers prefer board-certified physicians, but whether these physicians provide better quality of care and outcomes for hospitalized patients is unclear.Objective: We evaluated whether care by board-certified physicians after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was associated with higher use of clinical guideline recommended therapies and lower 30-day mortality.Subjects and Methods: We examined 101,251 Medicare patients hospitalized for AMI in the United States and compared use of aspirin, beta-blockers, and 30-day mortality according to the attending physicians' board certification in family practice, internal medicine, or cardiology.Results: Board-certified family practitioners had slightly higher use of aspirin (admission: 51.1% vs 46.0%; discharge: 72.2% vs 63.9%) and beta-blockers (admission: 44.1% vs 37.1%; discharge: 46.2% vs 38.7%) than nonboard-certified family practitioners. There was a similar pattern in board-certified Internists for aspirin (admission: 53.7% vs 49.6%; discharge: 78.2% vs 68.8%) and beta-blockers (admission: 48.9% vs 44.1%; discharge: 51.2% vs 47.1). Board-certified cardiologists had higher use of aspirin compared with cardiologists certified in internal medicine only or without any board certification (admission: 61.3% vs 53.1% vs 52.1%; discharge: 82.2% vs 71.8% vs 71.5%) and beta-blockers (admission: 52.9% vs 49.6% vs 41.5%; discharge: 54.7% vs 50.6% vs 42.5%). In multivariate regression analyses, board certification was not associated with differences in 30-day mortality.Conclusions: Treatment by a board-certified physician was associated with modestly higher quality of care for AMI, but not differences in mortality. Regardless of board certification, all physicians had opportunities to improve quality of care for AMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Whether patients with acute myocardial infarction who are treated by cardiologists have better outcomes than patients treated by generalist physicians is controversial. Because some of the survival benefit associated with cardiology care may be due to baseline differences in patient characteristics, we evaluated how differences in case-mix of comorbid illness and functional limitations may explain the association between specialty care and survival.Materials and Methods: We examined the records of 109,243 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for myocardial infarction from 1994 to 1995 from the national Cooperative Cardiovascular Project to evaluate the association of physician specialty with 30-day and 1-year mortality. We assessed the extent to which this relation was mediated by differences in the use of guideline-supported therapies (aspirin, beta-blockers, reperfusion, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) or differences in the clinical characteristics of the patients.Results: Patients who had board-certified cardiologists as attending physicians had the least number of comorbid conditions, whereas patients who had general practitioners or internal medicine subspecialists as attending physicians usually had the most comorbidities. Cardiologists had the greatest use of most guideline-supported therapies, and general practitioners had the lowest use. After adjustment for severity of myocardial infarction, clinical presentation, and hospital characteristics, patients treated by cardiologists were less likely to die within 1 year (relative risk [RR] = 0.92, 95%, confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 0. 95), and patients cared for by other general practitioners were more likely to die within 1 year (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.14), than patients cared for by general internists. After adjusting for additional measures of comorbid illness and functional limitations, the 1-year survival benefit associated with cardiology care was attenuated relative to internists (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.0), and the excess mortality associated with general practitioners decreased (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.11). After further adjustment for the use of guideline-supported therapies, both differences in 1-year survival between patients treated by cardiologists or general practitioners were not significantly different from those of patients treated by internists.Conclusion: Studies comparing outcomes by physician specialties that do not adjust adequately for differences in patient characteristics may attribute more benefit than is appropriate to specialists who treat patients who have fewer comorbid conditions. Some of the remaining benefit-at least among patients with myocardial infarction-may be attributable to greater use of recommended therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reflects on the challenges of assessing the performance of hospitals with small volumes of patients. It discusses a study conducted by S. M. O'Brien and colleagues which examined the relationship between hospital performance and sample size using process-of-care measures of quality for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Ticagrelor reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and increased bleeding in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary artery disease. Limb events including revascularization, acute limb ischemia (ALI), and amputation are major morbidities in patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis. This study sought to determine the effect of ticagrelor on limb events. Patients were randomized to ticagrelor or placebo on top of aspirin and followed for a median of 3 years. MACE (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), limb events (ALI, amputation, revascularization), and bleeding were adjudicated by an independent and blinded clinical events committee. The presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) was reported at baseline. Of 19,220 patients randomized, 1,687 (8.8%) had PAD at baseline. In patients receiving placebo, PAD was associated with higher MACE (10.7% vs 7.3%; HR: 1.48; P < 0.001) and limb (9.5% vs 0.8%; HR: 10.67; P < 0.001) risk. Ticagrelor reduced limb events (1.6% vs 1.3%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.96; P = 0.022) with significant reductions for revascularization (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-0.99; P = 0.044) and ALI (HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.70; P = 0.009). The benefit was consistent with or without PAD (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.58-1.11; and HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.55-1.05, respectively; P interaction = 0.81). There was no effect modification of ticagrelor vs placebo based on PAD for MACE (P interaction = 0.40) or TIMI major bleeding (P interaction = 0.3239). Patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis are at high risk of limb events. Ticagrelor decreased this risk, but increased bleeding. Future trials evaluating the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin would further elucidate the benefit/risk of such therapy in patients with PAD, including those without coronary artery disease. (A Study Comparing Cardiovascular Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Placebo in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [THEMIS]: NCT01991795) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A personal narrative which explores the author's experience studying myocardial infarction is presented.

Background: “America's Best Hospitals,” an influential list published annually by U.S. News & World Report, assesses the quality of hospitals. It is not known whether patients admitted to hospitals ranked at the top in cardiology have lower short-term mortality from acute myocardial infarction than those admitted to other hospitals or whether differences in mortality are explained by differential use of recommended therapies. Methods: Using data from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project on 149,177 elderly Medicare beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction in 1994 or 1995, we examined the care and outcomes of patients admitted to three types of hospitals: those ranked high in cardiology (top-ranked hospitals); hospitals not in the top rank that had on-site facilities for cardiac catheterization, coronary angioplasty, and bypass surgery (similarly equipped hospitals); and the remaining hospitals (non–similarly equipped hospitals). We compared 30-day mortality; the rates of use of aspirin, beta-blockers, and reperfusion; and the relation of differences in rates of therapy to short-term mortality. Results: Admission to a top-ranked hospital was associated with lower adjusted 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.87; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.00; P=0.05 for top-ranked hospitals vs. the others). Among patients without contraindications to therapy, top-ranked hospitals had significantly higher rates of use of aspirin (96.2 percent, as compared with 88.6 percent for similarly equipped hospitals and 83.4 percent for non–similarly equipped hospitals; P<0.01) and beta-blockers (75.0 percent vs. 61.8 percent and 58.7 percent, P<0.01), but lower rates of reperfusion therapy (61.0 percent vs. 70.7 percent and 65.6 percent, P=0.03). The survival advantage associated with admission to top-ranked hospitals was less strong after we adjusted for factors including the use of aspirin and beta-blockers (odds ratio, 0.94; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.08; P=0.38). Conclusions: Admission to a hospital ranked high on the list of “America's Best Hospitals” was associated with lower 30-day mortality among elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. A substantial portion of the survival advantage may be associated with these hospitals' higher rates of use of aspirin and beta-blocker therapy. (N Engl J Med 1999;340:286-92.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor.Methods: The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population).Findings: Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 2·8-3·8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7·3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8·6%] of 5596; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74-0·97], p=0·013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0·76, pinteraction=0·16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3·1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3·3%) with placebo; HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·78-1·18], p=0·68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5·1%] vs 323 [5·8%]; 0·88 [0·75-1·03], p=0·11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2·0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1·1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·48-2·76], p<0·0001), and fatal bleeding in 6 (0·1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0·1%) of 5564 with placebo (1·13 [0·36-3·50], p=0·83). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (0·6%) and 31 (0·6%) patients (1·21 [0·74-1·97], p=0·45). Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9·3%) versus 617/5596 (11·0%), HR=0·85, 95% CI 0·75-0·95, p=0·005, in contrast to patients without PCI where it did not, pinteraction=0·012. Benefit was present irrespective of time from most recent PCI.Interpretation: In patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, although with increased major bleeding. In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (more than in patients without history of PCI). This effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered in patients with diabetes and a history of PCI who have tolerated antiplatelet therapy, have high ischaemic risk, and low bleeding risk.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]