Hospital and Physician Variability in Revascularization Decisions and Outcomes for Patients With 3-Vessel and Left
Todd Wilson1,2,3, Matthew T James1,2,3, Danielle Southern4
1Department of Medicine University of Calgary Alberta Canada.
Insights
Hospital variation in treating complex coronary artery disease with medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, or CABG did not impact 5-year mortality. These findings highlight the need to include medically managed patients in revascularization research.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Significant variation exists in treatment selection (percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting) for coronary artery disease patients.
- Previous studies often excluded patients receiving medical therapy, limiting understanding of treatment variation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate hospital-level variation in treatment selection for complex coronary artery disease.
- To assess the impact of this variation on patient outcomes, including mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 22,580 adult patients with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease from 2010-2019 across three Alberta, Canada hospitals.
- Utilized multilevel regression to determine factors influencing treatment choice (medical, PCI, CABG) and survival models for 5-year outcome assessment.
Main Results:
- Hospital factors accounted for 10.8% of treatment variation; sites B and C showed significantly lower rates of medical therapy and CABG compared to site A.
- Over 5-year follow-up, no inter-site differences in mortality or acute coronary syndromes/stroke were observed.
- Patients at sites B and C had a 24% lower risk of heart failure hospitalization.
Conclusions:
- Hospital-level variation in treatment selection for complex coronary artery disease does not correlate with 5-year mortality differences.
- Future research and quality improvement initiatives on revascularization practices must incorporate medically managed patients.
Background:
Hospital- and physician-level variation for selection of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with coronary artery disease has been associated with outcome differences. However, most studies excluded patients treated medically.
Methods And Results:
From 2010 to 2019, adults with 3-vessel or left main coronary artery disease at 3 hospitals (A, B, C) in Alberta, Canada, were categorized by treatment with medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, or CABG. Multilevel regression models determined the proportion of variation in treatment attributable to patient, physician, and hospital factors, and survival models assessed outcomes including death and major adverse cardiovascular events over 5 years. Of 22 580 patients (mean age, 67 years; 80% men): 6677 (29%) received medical management, 9171 (41%) percutaneous coronary intervention, and 6732 (30%) CABG. Hospital factors accounted for 10.8% of treatment variation. In adjusted models (site A as reference), patients at sites B and C had 49% (95% CI, 44%-53%) and 43% (95% CI, 37%-49%) lower rates of medical therapy, respectively, and 31% (95% CI, 24%-38%) and 32% (95% CI, 24%-40%) lower rates of CABG. During 5.0 years median follow-up, 3287 (14.6%) patients died, with no intersite mortality differences. There were no between-site differences in acute coronary syndromes or stroke; patients at sites B and C had 24% lower risk (95% CI, 13%-34% and 11%-35%, respectively) of heart failure hospitalization.
Conclusions:
Hospital-level variation in selection of percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG, or medical therapy for patients with complex coronary artery disease was not associated with differences in 5-year mortality rates. Research and quality improvement initiatives comparing revascularization practices should include medically managed patients.
More Related Videos
07:25Predicting Amputation using Local Circulating Mononuclear Progenitor Cells in Angioplasty-treated Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia
Published on: September 22, 2020
10:28Interventional Diagnostic Procedure: A Practical Guide for the Assessment of Coronary Vascular Function
Published on: March 15, 2022
