Lower Hospital Volume Is Associated With Higher In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Report From the NCDR

Background— Current guidelines recommend >36 primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) per hospital per year. Whether these standards remain valid when routine coronary stenting and newer pharmacological agents are used is unclear. Methods and Results— We analyzed patients who underwent primary PCI from July 2006 through June 2009 included in the CathPCI Registry. Hospitals were separated into 3 groups: low (⩽36 primary PCIs/y, current guideline recommendation), intermediate (>36–60 primary PCIs/y), and high volume (>60 primary PCIs/y). In-hospital mortality and door-to-balloon time were examined for each group. A total of 87 324 patient visits for 86 044 patients from 738 hospitals were included. There were 278 low- (38%), 236 (32%) intermediate-, and 224 (30%) high-volume hospitals. The majority of patients with primary PCI (54%) were treated at high-volume hospitals, with 15% at low-volume hospitals. Unadjusted mortality was significantly higher in low-volume hospitals compared with high-volume hospitals (5.6% versus 4.8%; P<0.001), which was maintained after multivariate adjustment (1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.08–1.33; P=0.001). In contrast, mortality was not significantly different between intermediate-volume and high-volume hospitals (4.8% versus 4.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94–1.11; P=0.61). Door-to-balloon times were significantly shorter in high-volume hospitals compared with low-volume hospitals (median, 72 minutes; interquartile range, [53–91] versus 77 [57–100] minutes; P<0.0001). Conclusions— Higher annual hospital volume of primary PCI continues to be associated with lower mortality, with higher mortality in hospitals performing ⩽36 primary PCIs/y.

[1]  Jill R Horwitz,et al.  Expansion of Invasive Cardiac Services in the United States , 2013, Circulation.

[2]  I. Piña,et al.  ACCF/AHA/SCAI 2013 update of the clinical competence statement on coronary artery interventional procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training (Writing Committee to Revise , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  D. Kent,et al.  Evidence of Systematic Duplication by New Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Programs , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[4]  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.

[5]  J. Messenger,et al.  The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Data Quality Brief: the NCDR Data Quality Program in 2012. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  P. Heidenreich,et al.  Physician Procedure Volume and Complications of Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation , 2012, Circulation.

[7]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Improvements in Door-to-Balloon Time in the United States, 2005 to 2010 , 2011, Circulation.

[8]  Daniel Polsky,et al.  Coronary revascularization trends in the United States, 2001-2008. , 2011, JAMA.

[9]  Joshua T. Cohen,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction Regionalization Strategies , 2010, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[10]  P. Post,et al.  The relation between volume and outcome of coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2010, European heart journal.

[11]  Elizabeth R DeLong,et al.  Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Choice of Reperfusion Strategy at Hospitals With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A National Registry of Myocardial Infarction Analysis , 2009, Circulation.

[13]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Association of hospital primary angioplasty volume in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with quality and outcomes. , 2009, JAMA.

[14]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Association of door-to-balloon time and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with ST elevation myocardial infarction: national cohort study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  S. Hailpern,et al.  Effect of physician volume on the relationship between hospital volume and mortality during primary angioplasty. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[16]  J. Jollis The New York State Primary Angioplasty Registry and procedural volume. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  R. Wilensky,et al.  Twenty-Year Evolution of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Its Impact on Clinical Outcomes: A Report From the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–Sponsored, Multicenter 1985–1986 PTCA and 1997–2006 Dynamic Registries , 2008, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[18]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. , 2006, JAMA.

[19]  E. Antman,et al.  Selection of the optimal reperfusion strategy for STEMI: does time matter? , 2006, European heart journal.

[20]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Driving Times and Distances to Hospitals With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States: Implications for Prehospital Triage of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction , 2006, Circulation.

[21]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  Volume-Outcome Relationships for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in the Stent Era , 2005, Circulation.

[22]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Hospital percutaneous coronary intervention volume and patient mortality, 1998 to 2000: does the evidence support current procedure volume minimums? , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  L. Klein,et al.  Evaluation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the Society for Coronary Angiography and Interventions lesion classification system in the current "stent era" of coronary interventions (from the ACC-National Cardiovascular Data Registry). , 2003, The American journal of cardiology.

[24]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Volume-Outcome Relation for Physicians and Hospitals Performing Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial Infarction in New York State , 2001, Circulation.

[25]  David O. Williams,et al.  ACC/AHA Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Revision of the 1993 PTCA Guidelines)—Executive Summary , 2001 .

[26]  H. White,et al.  One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. , 2001, JAMA.

[27]  J. Rumsfeld,et al.  Relation between hospital primary angioplasty volume and mortality for patients with acute MI treated with primary angioplasty vs thrombolytic therapy. , 2000, JAMA.

[28]  T. Ryan,et al.  Relation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stent. , 2000, JAMA.

[29]  C M Gibson,et al.  Relationship of symptom-onset-to-balloon time and door-to-balloon time with mortality in patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. , 2000, JAMA.

[30]  W. Rogers,et al.  The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  S. Ellis,et al.  Relation of operator volume and experience to procedural outcome of percutaneous coronary revascularization at hospitals with high interventional volumes. , 1997, Circulation.

[32]  T. Ryan Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). , 1988, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.