Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Boyden, TF; Joynt, KE; McCoy, L; Neely, ML; Cavender, MA; Dixon, S; Masoudi, FA; Peterson, E; Rao, SV; Gurm, HS
Published in: Am Heart J
December 2015

INTRODUCTION: Public reporting (PR) is a policy mechanism that may improve clinical outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, prior studies have shown that PR may have an adverse impact on patient selection. It is unclear whether alternatives to PR, such as collaborative quality improvement (CQI), may drive improvements in quality of care and outcomes for patients receiving PCI without the unintended consequences seen with PR. METHODS: Using National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data from January 2011 through September 2012, we evaluated patients who underwent PCI in New York (NY), a state with PR (N = 51,983), to Michigan, a state with CQI (N = 53,528). We compared patient characteristics, the quality of care delivered, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Patients undergoing PCI in NY had a lower-risk profile, with a lower proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or cardiogenic shock, compared with Michigan. Quality of care was broadly similar in the 2 states; however, outcomes were better in NY. In a propensity-matched analysis, patients in NY were less likely to be referred for emergent, urgent, or salvage coronary artery bypass surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.51-0.88, P < .0001) and to receive blood transfusion (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.61-0.82, P < .0001), and had lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.83, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Public reporting of PCI data is associated with fewer high-risk patients undergoing PCI compared with CQI. However, in comparable samples of patients, PR is also associated with a lower risk of mortality and adverse events. The optimal quality improvement method may involve combining these 2 strategies to protect access to care while still driving improvements in patient outcomes.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Am Heart J

DOI

EISSN

1097-6744

Publication Date

December 2015

Volume

170

Issue

6

Start / End Page

1227 / 1233

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Treatment Outcome
  • Shock, Cardiogenic
  • Risk Assessment
  • Registries
  • Quality of Health Care
  • Quality Improvement
  • Propensity Score
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
  • Outcome Assessment, Health Care
  • New York
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Boyden, T. F., Joynt, K. E., McCoy, L., Neely, M. L., Cavender, M. A., Dixon, S., … Gurm, H. S. (2015). Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan. Am Heart J, 170(6), 1227–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2015.09.006
Boyden, Thomas F., Karen E. Joynt, Lisa McCoy, Megan L. Neely, Matthew A. Cavender, Simon Dixon, Frederick A. Masoudi, Eric Peterson, Sunil V. Rao, and Hitinder S. Gurm. “Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan.Am Heart J 170, no. 6 (December 2015): 1227–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2015.09.006.
Boyden, Thomas F., et al. “Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan.Am Heart J, vol. 170, no. 6, Dec. 2015, pp. 1227–33. Pubmed, doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2015.09.006.
Boyden TF, Joynt KE, McCoy L, Neely ML, Cavender MA, Dixon S, Masoudi FA, Peterson E, Rao SV, Gurm HS. Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: A comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan. Am Heart J. 2015 Dec;170(6):1227–1233.
Journal cover image

Published In

Am Heart J

DOI

EISSN

1097-6744

Publication Date

December 2015

Volume

170

Issue

6

Start / End Page

1227 / 1233

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Treatment Outcome
  • Shock, Cardiogenic
  • Risk Assessment
  • Registries
  • Quality of Health Care
  • Quality Improvement
  • Propensity Score
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
  • Outcome Assessment, Health Care
  • New York