Temporal Trends in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Appropriateness: Insights From the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program.

BACKGROUND It is unknown whether the appropriate use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has improved over time and whether trends in PCI appropriateness have been accompanied by changes in the use of PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS We applied appropriate use criteria to determine the appropriateness of all 51 872 PCI performed in Washington State from 2010 through 2013. We evaluated the number of PCIs performed from 2006 through 2013 to provide a comparator period that preceded statewide appropriateness assessment beginning in 2010. Between 2010 and 2013, the overall number of PCI decreased by 6.8% (13 267 PCIs in 2010 to 12 193 in 2013) with a 43% decline in the number of PCIs for elective indications (3818 PCIs in 2010 to 2193 PCIs in 2013). The decline in the use of elective PCI was significantly larger after the onset of statewide PCI appropriateness assessment in 2010 (P=0.03). The proportion of elective PCIs classified as appropriate increased from 26% in 2010 to 38% in 2013, whereas the proportion of inappropriate PCIs decreased from 16% to 13% (P<0.001 for trends). Significant improvements in the proportion of inappropriate PCI were limited to the tertile of hospitals with the largest decline in PCIs classified as inappropriate (25% in 2010 to 12% in 2013; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS In Washington State, the use of PCI for elective indications has decreased over time with concurrent improvements in PCI appropriateness. However, improvements in PCI appropriateness were limited to a minority of hospitals. Understanding processes at these high-performing hospitals may inform efforts to improve PCI appropriateness.

[1]  K. Fukuda,et al.  Letter by Inohara et al Regarding Article, "Temporal Trends in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Appropriateness: Insights From the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program". , 2016, Circulation.

[2]  E. Yow,et al.  A selection of recent, original research papers , 2015, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology.

[3]  Manesh R. Patel,et al.  Patient selection for diagnostic coronary angiography and hospital-level percutaneous coronary intervention appropriateness: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[4]  H. Miyata,et al.  Appropriateness ratings of percutaneous coronary intervention in Japan and its association with the trend of noninvasive testing. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[5]  G. Stone,et al.  Appropriate use criteria to reduce underuse and overuse of revascularization. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  J. Spertus,et al.  Abstract 1: The Association Between Patient Selection for Diagnostic Coronary Angiography and Hospital-Level PCI Appropriateness: Insights from the NCDR , 2013, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

[7]  J. Messenger,et al.  A contemporary view of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: a report from the CathPCI Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2010 through June 2011. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  J. Tu,et al.  Assessing the association of appropriateness of coronary revascularization and clinical outcomes for patients with stable coronary artery disease. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  M. Patel Appropriate use criteria to reduce underuse and overuse: striking the right balance. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  Appropriateness of coronary revascularization for patients without acute coronary syndromes. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  Manesh R. Patel,et al.  Hospital Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Appropriateness and In-Hospital Procedural Outcomes: Insights From the NCDR , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[12]  J. Spertus,et al.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 Appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Am , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  P. Teirstein,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention use in the United States: defining measures of appropriateness. , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[14]  C. Maynard,et al.  Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Washington State , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[15]  Kevin Kennedy,et al.  Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2011, JAMA.

[16]  J. Spertus,et al.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Th , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  Mario J. Garcia,et al.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization , 2009, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[18]  D. Berman,et al.  Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Strategies for reducing the door-to-balloon time in acute myocardial infarction. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  C. Maynard,et al.  Effects of a statewide physician-led quality-improvement program on the quality of cardiac care. , 2006, American heart journal.

[21]  R. Hendel,et al.  ACCF proposed method for evaluating the appropriateness of cardiovascular imaging. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[22]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Achieving door-to-balloon times that meet quality guidelines: how do successful hospitals do it? , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  J. Spertus,et al.  Washington State's model of physician leadership in cardiac outcomes reporting. , 2000, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[24]  K. Hammermeister,et al.  The American College of Cardiology National Database: progress and challenges. American College of Cardiology Database Committee. , 1997, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.