Association of Statewide Certificate of Need Regulations With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Appropriateness and Outcomes

Delirium in older adults after percutaneous coronary intervention: Prevalence, risks, and clinical phenotypes

INTRODUCTION

In-hospital delirium is more common among older adults and is associated with increased mortality and adverse health-related outcomes. We aim to establish the contemporary prevalence of delirium among older adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the impact of delirium on in-hospital complications.

METHODS

We identified older adults aged ≥75 years in the National Inpatient Sample who underwent inpatient PCI for any reason from 2016 to 2020 and stratified them into those with and without delirium. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes encompassed post-procedural complications.

RESULTS

Delirium occurred in 14,130 (2.6 %) hospitalizations in which PCI was performed. Patients who developed delirium were older and had more comorbidities. Patients with in-hospital delirium had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.27, p = 0.002) and non-home discharge (aOR 3.17, p < 0.001). Delirium was also associated with higher odds of intracranial hemorrhage (aOR 2.49, p < 0.001), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (aOR 1.25, p = 0.030), need for blood transfusion (aOR 1.52, p < 0.001), acute kidney injury (aOR 1.62, p < 0.001), and fall in hospital (aOR 1.97, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Delirium among older adults undergoing PCI is relatively common and associated with higher odds of in-hospital mortality and adverse events. This highlights the importance of vigilant delirium prevention and early recognition in the peri-procedural setting, especially for older adults.

Race and outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium

BACKGROUND

Current studies show similar in-hospital outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between Black and White patients. Long-term outcomes and the role of individual and community-level socioeconomic factors in differential risk are less understood.

METHODS

We linked clinical registry data from PCIs performed between January, 2013 and March, 2018 at 48 Michigan hospitals to Medicare Fee-for-service claims. We analyzed patients of Black and White race. We used propensity score matching and logistic regression models to estimate the odds of 90-day readmission and Cox regression to evaluate the risk of postdischarge mortality. We used mediation analysis to evaluate the proportion of association mediated by socioeconomic factors.

RESULTS

Of the 29,317 patients included in this study, 10.28% were Black and 89.72% were White. There were minimal differences between groups regarding post-PCI in-hospital outcomes. Compared with White patients, Black patients were more likely to be readmitted within 90-days of discharge (adjusted OR 1.62, 95% CI [1.32-2.00]) and had significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.30-1.61) when adjusting for age and gender. These associations were significantly mediated by dual eligibility (proportion mediated [PM] for readmission: 11.0%; mortality: 21.1%); dual eligibility and economic well-being of the patient's community (PM for readmission: 22.3%; mortality: 43.0%); and dual eligibility, economic well-being of the community, and baseline clinical characteristics (PM for readmission: 45.0%; mortality: 87.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients had a higher risk of 90-day readmission and cumulative mortality following PCI compared with White patients. Associations were mediated by dual eligibility, community economic well-being, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Our study highlights the need for improved upstream care and streamlined postdischarge care pathways as potential strategies to improve health care disparities in cardiovascular disease.

Government Regulation and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Volume, Access and Outcomes: Insights From the Washington State Cardiac Care Outcomes Assessment Program

Background

It is unclear how to geographically distribute percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) programs to optimize patient outcomes. The Washington State Certificate of Need program seeks to balance hospital volume and patient access through regulation of elective PCI.

Methods and Results

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all non‐Veterans Affairs hospitals with PCI programs in Washington State from 2009 to 2018. Hospitals were classified as having (1) full PCI services and surgical backup (legacy hospitals, n=17); (2) full services without surgical backup (new certificate of need [CON] hospitals, n=9); or (3) only nonelective PCI without surgical backup (myocardial infarction [MI] access hospitals, n=9). Annual median hospital‐level volumes were highest at legacy hospitals (605, interquartile range, 466–780), followed by new CON, (243, interquartile range, 146–287) and MI access, (61, interquartile range, 23–145). Compared with MI access hospitals, risk‐adjusted mortality for nonelective patients was lower for legacy (odds ratio [OR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.48–0.72]) and new‐CON hospitals (OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45–0.65]). Legacy hospitals provided access within 60 minutes for 90% of the population; addition of new CON and MI access hospitals resulted in only an additional 1.5% of the population having access within 60 minutes.

Conclusions

Many PCI programs in Washington State do not meet minimum volume standards despite regulation designed to consolidate elective PCI procedures. This CON strategy has resulted in a tiered system that includes low‐volume centers treating high‐risk patients with poor outcomes, without significant increase in geographic access. CON policies should re‐evaluate the number and distribution of PCI programs.

Prevention and Management of AKI in ACS Patients Undergoing Invasive Treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) includes invasive procedures that may increase the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). AKI adversely affects the outcomes of such procedures and complicates the management of ACS. We have summarized several strategies for the prevention and management of AKI in this critical patient group including in the pre-procedural, intraprocedural, and post-procedural settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Definitive prevention and management strategies for AKI in patients presenting with ACS requiring invasive management can be confounded by the variation in data outcomes. Pre-procedural hydration with normal saline when accounting for time to catheterization, radial artery access, contrast stewardship, and close monitoring of renal function after catheterization should be implemented.

Association of State Certificate of Need Regulation With Procedural Volume, Market Share, and Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries

IMPORTANCE

Certificate of need laws provide state-level regulation of health system expenditure. These laws are intended to limit spending and control hospital expansion in order to prevent excess capacity and improve quality of care. Several states have recently introduced legislation to modify or repeal these regulations, as encouraged by executive order 13813, issued in October 2017 by the Trump administration.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the difference in markers of hospital activity and quality by state certificate of need status. These markers include hospital procedural volume, hospital market share, county-level procedures per 10 000 persons, and patient-level postoperative outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional study involving Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who underwent 1 of the following 10 procedures from January 1, 2016, through November 30, 2018: total knee or hip arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, colectomy, ventral hernia repair, lower extremity vascular bypass, lung resection, pancreatic resection, cystectomy, or esophagectomy.

EXPOSURES

State certificate of need regulation status as determined by data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes of interest included hospital procedural volume; hospital market share (range, 0-1; reflecting 0%-100% of market share); county-level procedures per 10 000 persons; and patient-level postoperative 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 1 545 952 patients (58.0% women; median age 72 years; interquartile range, 68-77 years) at 3631 hospitals underwent 1 of the 10 operations. Of these patients, 468 236 (30.3%) underwent procedures in the 15 states without certificate of need regulations and 1 077 716 (69.7%) in the 35 states with certificate of need regulations. The total number of procedures ranged between 729 855 total knee arthroplasties (47.21%) and 4558 esophagectomies (0.29%). When comparing states without vs with certificate of need regulations, there were no significant differences in overall hospital procedural volume (median hospital procedure volume, 241 vs 272 operations per hospital for 3 years; absolute difference, 31; 95% CI, -27.64 to 89.64; P = .30). There were no statistically significant differences between states without vs with certificate of need regulations for median hospital market share (median, 28% vs 52%; absolute difference, 24%; 95% CI, -5% to 55%; P = .11); procedure rates per 10 000 Medicare-eligible population (median, 239.23 vs 205.41 operations per Medicare-eligible population in 3 years; absolute difference, 33.82; 95% CI, -84.08 to 16.43; P = .19); or 30-day mortality (1.17% vs 1.33%, odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = .52), surgical site infection (1.24% vs 1.25%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04; P = .21), or readmission rate (9.69% vs 8.40%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.12; P = .19).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a range of surgical procedures from 2016 through 2018, there were no significant differences in markers of hospital volume or quality between states without vs with certificate of need laws. Policy makers should consider reevaluating whether the current approach to certificate of need regulation is achieving the intended objectives and whether those objectives should be updated.

Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Appropriate Use Criteria Outperform Certificate of Need

See Article by Chui et al.

Association of Statewide Certificate of Need Regulations With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Appropriateness and Outcomes

Background Certificate of need ( CON ) regulations are intended to coordinate new healthcare services, limit expansion of unnecessary new infrastructure, and limit healthcare costs. However, there is limited information about the association of CON regulations with the appropriateness and outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions ( PCI ). The study sought to characterize the association between state CON regulations and PCI appropriateness. Methods and Results We used data from the American College of Cardiology's Cath PCI Registry to analyze 1 268 554 PCI s performed at 1297 hospitals between January 2010 and December 2011. We used the Appropriate Use Criteria to classify PCI procedures as appropriate, maybe appropriate, or rarely appropriate and used Chi-square analyses to assess whether the proportions of PCI s in each Appropriate Use Criteria category varied depending on whether the procedure had been performed in a state with or without CON regulations. Analyses were repeated stratified by whether or not the procedure had been performed in the setting of an acute coronary syndrome ( ACS ). Among 1 268 554 PCI procedures, 674 384 (53.2%) were performed within 26 CON states. The proportion of PCI s classified as rarely appropriate in CON states was slightly lower compared with non- CON states (3.7% versus 4.0%, P<0.01). Absolute differences were larger among non- ACS PCI (23.1% versus 25.0% [ P<0.01]) and were not statistically significantly different in ACS (0.62% versus 0.63% [ P>0.05]). Conclusions States with CON had lower proportions of rarely appropriate PCI s, but the absolute differences were small. These findings suggest that CON regulations alone may not limit rarely appropriate PCI among patients with and without ACS .