Achievement of Guideline-Concordant Care and In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease in Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitals: Results From the Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease Program

Background— Secondary prevention therapies improve longitudinal outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Previous studies showed that teaching hospitals (THs) more consistently use evidence-based secondary prevention therapies than non-THs (NTHs). It is unclear whether these differences persist after initiation of a national quality improvement system. Methods and Results— We analyzed 270902 patients across 361 hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease program from June 2000 to September 2009. The primary outcome was guideline-concordant care, defined as compliance with all Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease quality measures: (1) aspirin within 24 hours, (2) aspirin at discharge, (3) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers for systolic dysfunction, (4) &bgr;-blockers at discharge, (5) lipid therapy if low-density lipoprotein >100 mg/dL, and (6) smoking cessation. We used multivariate modeling to compare the relationship between TH and NTH status on quality measures, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay. Guideline-concordant care was higher at THs (78.4% versus 73.3%; P<0.01). The adjusted odds ratio between 2000 and 2009 for guideline-concordant care at THs compared with NTHs was 2.78 (confidence interval, 1.28–6.06; P=0.01). Guideline-concordant care increased from 2000 to 2009 at THs (n=176; 65.3%→88.3%; adjusted odds ratio for year increase, 1.24 [confidence interval, 1.16–1.30; P<0.01]) and NTHs (n=185; 61.0%→93.9%; adjusted odds ratio for year increase, 1.35 [confidence interval, 1.26–1.45]; P<0.01). THs had shorter length of stay (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74 for length of stay >4 days; confidence interval, 0.58–0.94) from 2000 to 2009. Lower in-hospital mortality was observed at THs (3.7% versus 4.4% at NTHs; P<0.01), but this was not significant after adjustment. Conclusions— Adherence to guideline-recommended therapies increased over time with participation in the Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease program, regardless of the teaching status. Guideline-concordant care over the full decade was higher in THs; however, NTHs demonstrated greater incremental improvement over time.

[1]  C. Cannon,et al.  Weekend/holiday versus weekday hospital discharge and guideline adherence (from the American Heart Association's Get with the Guidelines--Coronary Artery Disease database). , 2008, The American journal of cardiology.

[2]  C. Cannon,et al.  An organized approach to improvement in guideline adherence for acute myocardial infarction: results with the Get With The Guidelines quality improvement program. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[3]  H. Krumholz,et al.  ACC/AHA 2008 performance measures for adults with ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to develop performance measures for ST-elevation and non-ST-eleva , 2008, Circulation.

[4]  Sidney C. Smith,et al.  Improved treatment of hospitalized coronary artery disease patients with the get with the guidelines program. , 2007, Critical pathways in cardiology.

[5]  L. Newby,et al.  A comparison of acute coronary syndrome care at academic and nonacademic hospitals. , 2007, The American journal of medicine.

[6]  A James O'Malley,et al.  Quality of care for the treatment of acute medical conditions in US hospitals. , 2006, Archives of internal medicine.

[7]  Yuling Hong,et al.  Overview of the American Heart Association "Get with the Guidelines" programs: coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. , 2006, Critical pathways in cardiology.

[8]  Elizabeth R DeLong,et al.  Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2006, JAMA.

[9]  K. Eagle,et al.  Medication performance measures and mortality following acute coronary syndromes. , 2005, The American journal of medicine.

[10]  A. Jha,et al.  Care in U.S. hospitals--the Hospital Quality Alliance program. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Utilization of early invasive management strategies for high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. , 2005, JAMA.

[12]  Lynn A Smaha,et al.  The American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines program. , 2004, American heart journal.

[13]  R. Gliklich,et al.  Using "get with the guidelines" to improve cardiovascular secondary prevention. , 2003, Joint Commission journal on quality and safety.

[14]  Avery Comarow,et al.  America's best hospitals. , 2003, U.S. news & world report.

[15]  E. Philbin,et al.  Hospital outcomes in major teaching, minor teaching, and nonteaching hospitals in New York state. , 2002, The American journal of medicine.

[16]  R. Centor,et al.  Relationship of hospital teaching status with quality of care and mortality for Medicare patients with acute MI. , 2000, JAMA.

[17]  M. Makary,et al.  Association of unstable angina guideline care with improved survival. , 2000, Archives of internal medicine.

[18]  K. Labresh,et al.  Get with the guidelines. , 2013, Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[19]  Y Wang,et al.  Do "America's Best Hospitals" perform better for acute myocardial infarction? , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.