Public Reporting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Mortality in New York State: Are We Helping Our Patients?

Contemporary Risk Models for In-Hospital and 30-Day Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Risk models for mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are underutilized in clinical practice though they may be useful during informed consent, risk mitigation planning, and risk adjustment of hospital and operator outcomes. This review analyzed contemporary risk models for in-hospital and 30-day mortality after PCI.

RECENT FINDINGS

We reviewed eight contemporary risk models. Age, sex, hemodynamic status, acute coronary syndrome type, heart failure, and kidney disease were consistently found to be independent risk factors for mortality. These models provided good discrimination (C-statistic 0.85-0.95) for both pre-catheterization and comprehensive risk models that included anatomic variables. There are several excellent models for PCI mortality risk prediction. Choice of the model will depend on the use case and population, though the CathPCI model should be the default for in-hospital mortality risk prediction in the United States. Future interventions should focus on the integration of risk prediction into clinical care.

Long-Term Outcomes of Unprotected Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Centers Without Onsite Cardiac Surgery

Unprotected left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at centers without onsite cardiac surgery remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the effect of onsite cardiac surgery on short-term and long-term outcomes in patients who had unprotected LM PCI. We analyzed Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry data on consecutive patients who had unprotected LM PCI at cardiac surgical centers (SCs) and non-SCs (NSCs) between January 2014 to December 2018. Compared with the SC group (n = 594, 81%), the NSC group (n = 136) were younger (69 vs 72 years) and presented with more ST-elevation myocardial infarction (35% vs 16%) and cardiogenic shock (25% vs 15%), with higher rates of preprocedural intubation (17% vs 11%) and mechanical circulatory support (20% vs 9.3%), all p <0.01. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality (23% vs 11.4%), and 30-day major adverse cardiac events (composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or unplanned revascularization) (26% vs 16%) were higher in NSC patients, all p <0.01. However, following multivariable adjustment, SC was neither a predictor of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 to 1.43, p = 0.31), 30-day mortality (odds ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.48, p = 0.35) nor long-term survival at 60 months (hazard ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27, p = 0.51). Propensity score analysis confirmed the neutral effect of onsite cardiac surgery on long-term survival (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.50, p = 0.97). In conclusion, patients who underwent unprotected LM PCI at NSCs presented with greater acuity of illness. Despite this, the availability of onsite cardiac surgical support was not associated with in-hospital, 30-day, or long-term outcomes underscoring the safety of LM PCI in NSCs.

Association Between Current and Future Annual Hospital Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Mortality Rates

Importance

Multiple states publicly report a hospital's risk-adjusted mortality rate for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a quality measure. However, whether reported annual PCI mortality is associated with a hospital's future performance is unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the association between reported risk-adjusted hospital PCI-related mortality and a hospital's future PCI-related mortality.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study used data from the New York Percutaneous Intervention Reporting System from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2016, to assess hospitals that perform PCI.

Exposures

Public-reported, risk-adjusted, 30-day mortality after PCI.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary analysis evaluated the association between a hospital's reported risk-adjusted PCI-related mortality and future PCI-related mortality. The correlation between a hospital's observed to expected (O/E) PCI-related mortality rates each year and future O/E mortality ratios was assessed. Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the association between index year O/E mortality and O/E mortality in subsequent years while adjusting for PCI volume and patient severity.

Results

This study included 67 New York hospitals and 960 hospital-years. Hospitals with low PCI-related mortality (O/E mortality ratio, ≤1) and high mortality (O/E mortality ratio, >1) had inverse associations between their O/E mortality ratio in the index year and the subsequent change in the ratio (hospitals with low mortality, r = -0.45; hospitals with high mortality, r = -0.60). Little of the variation in risk-adjusted mortality was explained by prior performance. An increase in the O/E mortality ratio from 1.0 to 2.0 in the index year was associated with a higher O/E mortality ratio of only 0.15 (95% CI, 0.02-0.27) in the following year.

Conclusions and Relevance

At hospitals with high or low PCI-related mortality rates, the rates largely regressed to the mean the following year. A hospital's risk-adjusted mortality rate was poorly associated with its future mortality. The annual hospital PCI-related mortality may not be a reliable factor associated with hospital quality to consider in a practice change or when helping patients select high-quality hospitals.

Public Reporting of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes: Moving Beyond the Status Quo

Importance

More than 20 years have passed since public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes first began in New York State, but reporting remains a polarizing issue.

Observations

Advocates of public reporting point to the strong incentive that public disclosure of outcomes data provides for institutions and clinicians to improve clinical care and to the importance of enabling patients to make informed choices about their care. Critics highlight the methodological challenges that impede fair and accurate assessments of care quality as well as reporting's unintended consequences. Public reporting of PCI outcomes has only been implemented in 5 states, but reporting efforts for multiple conditions and procedures are now proliferating nationally, propelled by the notion that transparency improves the quality of health care and fosters trust in health care institutions. Careful evaluation of the evidence to date for PCI in particular, however, suggests that enthusiasm for such efforts should be tempered.

Conclusions and Relevance

Public reporting has not achieved its primary objectives. Policy makers should consider variations of reporting that might strengthen care quality, empower patients, and mitigate undesirable repercussions.