Search

Background The impact of surgical risk on the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is uncertain. We assessed (1) whether in-hospital mortality rates differ across lower- and higher-volume hospitals by expected surgical risk and (2) whether high-risk patients are more likely to undergo CABG at low-volume centers. Methods We used clinical data on 27 355 adults who underwent CABG at 68 hospitals in California between 1997 and 1998. Hospitals were divided into low-volume (n = 44), medium-volume (n = 19), and high-volume (n = 5) categories on the basis of tertiles of annual CABG volume. Using hierarchical logistic regression and log-binomial regression models, we assessed for differences in in-hospital mortality rates across hospital volume categories and the likelihood of CABG being performed in each hospital volume category after adjusting for expected surgical risk. Results Differences in adjusted in-hospital mortality rates between low- and high-volume centers rose as the expected risk of in-hospital death increased: 0.8% vs 0.4% at the 20th risk percentile and 3.8% vs 2.5% at the 80th risk percentile (P<.001 for all comparisons). While a similar trend was seen between medium- and high-volume centers, absolute differences were substantially smaller. The likelihood of patients having surgery at a low-volume center also rose significantly with expected surgical risk (relative risk of undergoing CABG at a low-volume center for patients at 80th vs 20th risk percentile, 1.29 [95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.51; P<.001]). Conclusion High-risk patients are more likely to undergo CABG at low-volume facilities where their risk of dying is higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Important administrative-based measures of hospital quality, including those used by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, may not adequately account for patient illness and social factors that vary between hospitals and can strongly affect outcomes. Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order on admission (within the first 24 hours) is one such factor that may reflect higher preadmission illness burden as well as patients' desire for less-intense therapeutic interventions and has been shown to vary widely between hospitals. We sought to evaluate how accounting for early DNR affected hospital quality measures for acute myocardial infarction. Methods AND RESULTS We identified all patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction using the California State Inpatient Database, which captures early DNR use within 24 hours of admission. We generated hospital risk-standardized mortality and readmissions using random-effects logistic regression, before and after including early DNR status, to examine changes in overall model fit and hospital outlier designations. We included 109 521 patients from 289 hospitals and found that 8.5% (9356) patients had early DNR. Early DNR use varied widely, with median (interquartile range) hospital rates of 7.9% (4.1%-14.0%). Including early DNR in models used to assess hospital quality resulted in improvement in the mortality model (C statistics from 0.754 [0.748-0.759] to 0.784 [0.779-0.789]) but not the readmissions model. Of the hospitals designated high outliers for mortality and readmissions by the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services model, and therefore destined for a financial penalty, 6/25 (24%) were reclassified as nonoutliers for mortality and 2/14 (14.3%) for readmissions after including DNR status. Agreement in outlier status between the models before and after inclusion of early DNR status was moderate for mortality (κ, 0.603 [0.482-0.724]; P<0.001) and high for readmissions (κ, 0.888 [0.800-0.977]; P<0.001). Conclusions Including early DNR status in risk-adjustment models significantly improved model fit and resulted in substantial reclassification of hospital performance rankings for mortality and moderate reclassification for readmissions. DNR status at hospital admission should be considered when reporting risk-standardized hospital mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Insurance status has been associated with whether patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presenting to emergency departments are transferred to other facilities, but whether the facility's percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities mediate this association is unknown., Objective: To examine whether uninsured patients with STEMI were more likely than patients with insurance to experience interfacility transfer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study compared patients with STEMI with and without insurance who presented to California emergency departments between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Patient Discharge Database and Emergency Department Discharge Database from the California Department of Health Care Access and Information. Statistical analyses were completed in April 2023., Exposures: Primary exposures were lack of insurance and facility percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was transfer status from the presenting emergency department of a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospital, defined as a facility performing 36 percutaneous coronary interventions per year. Multivariable logistic regression models with multiple robustness checks were performed to determine the association of insurance status with the odds of transfer., Results: This study included 135 358 patients with STEMI, of whom 32 841 patients (24.2%) were transferred (mean [SD] age, 64 [14] years; 10 100 women [30.8%]; 2542 Asian individuals [7.7%]; 2053 Black individuals [6.3%]; 8285 Hispanic individuals [25.2%]; 18 650 White individuals [56.8%]). After adjusting for time trends, patient factors, and transferring hospital characteristics (including percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities), patients who were uninsured had lower odds of experiencing interfacility transfer than those with insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98; P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: After accounting for a facility's percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities, lack of insurance was associated with lower odds of emergency department transfer for patients with STEMI. These findings warrant further investigation to understand the characteristics of facilities and outcomes for uninsured patients with STEMI.

Fibrinolytic therapy is the most common reperfusion strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), particularly in smaller centers. Previous studies evaluated the relation between time to treatment and outcomes when few patients were treated within 30 minutes of hospital arrival and many did not receive modern adjunctive medications. To quantify the impact of a delay in door-to-needle time on mortality in a recent and representative cohort of patients with STEMI, a cohort of 62,470 patients with STEMI treated using fibrinolytic therapy at 973 hospitals that participated in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction from 1999 to 2002 was analyzed. Hierarchical models were used to evaluate the independent effect of door-to-needle time on in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality was lower with shorter door-to-needle times (2.9% for < or =30 minutes, 4.1% for 31 to 45 minutes, and 6.2% for >45 minutes; p <0.001 for trend). Compared with those experiencing door-to-needle times < or =30 minutes, adjusted odd ratios (ORs) of dying were 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04 to 1.31) and 1.37 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.52; p for trend <0.001) for patients with door-to-needle times of 31 to 45 and >45 minutes, respectively. This relation was particularly pronounced in those presenting within 1 hour of symptom onset to presentation time (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.54; OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.87, respectively; p for trend <0.001). In conclusion, timely administration of fibrinolytic therapy continues to significantly impact on mortality in the modern era, particularly in patients presenting early after symptom onset.

Background: Individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) have reduced access to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). It is unknown if low-SES CABG patients have reduced access to hospitals with better outcomes., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of the California CABG Mortality Reporting Program, consisting of individuals with zip code information who underwent CABG at participating hospitals in 1999-2000 (n = 18,961). Primary outcome measures were inhospital mortality after CABG; primary independent variables of interest were area-level SES, clinical risk factors, and hospital volume. We used 2-level hierarchical random-effects logit models to estimate the relationship between explanatory variables and inhospital mortality., Results: Within high-volume hospitals, patients of low-SES areas had greater mortality than those of mid- and high-SES areas (2.5% vs 1.5% vs 1.8%, P = .024). However, there was no relationship between SES and mortality in lower-volume hospitals. Contrary to expectations, individuals of high-SES areas (42%) underwent surgery at low-volume hospitals more often than patients of low-SES areas (28%, P < .001), although mortality at low-volume hospitals was greater than that at high-volume facilities (P < .001). Discrepancies were not explained by distance traveled., Conclusions: Mortality after CABG is modified by both SES and hospital volume. Within high-volume hospitals, patients of low-SES areas fared worse than patients of higher-SES areas. Patients of high SES tended to have CABG surgery at low-volume hospitals where mortality was greater and therefore had higher mortality than expected.