Development of a risk adjustment mortality model using the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) experience: 1998-2000.

OBJECTIVES We sought to develop and evaluate a risk adjustment model for in-hospital mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures using data from a large, multi-center registry. BACKGROUND The 1998-2000 American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) dataset was used to overcome limitations of prior risk-adjustment analyses. METHODS Data on 100,253 PCI procedures collected at the ACC-NCDR between January 1, 1998, and September 30, 2000, were analyzed. A training set/test set approach was used. Separate models were developed for presentation with and without acute myocardial infarction (MI) within 24 h. RESULTS Factors associated with increased risk of PCI mortality (with odds ratios in parentheses) included cardiogenic shock (8.49), increasing age (2.61 to 11.25), salvage (13.38) urgent (1.78) or emergent PCI (5.75), pre-procedure intra-aortic balloon pump insertion (1.68), decreasing left ventricular ejection fraction (0.87 to 3.93), presentation with acute MI (1.31), diabetes (1.41), renal failure (3.04), chronic lung disease (1.33); treatment approaches including thrombolytic therapy (1.39) and non-stent devices (1.64); and lesion characteristics including left main (2.04), proximal left anterior descending disease (1.97) and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions lesion classification (1.64 to 2.11). Overall, excellent discrimination was achieved (C-index = 0.89) and application of the model to high-risk patient groups demonstrated C-indexes exceeding 0.80. Patient factors were more predictive in the MI model, while lesion and procedural factors were more predictive in the analysis of non-MI patients. CONCLUSIONS A risk adjustment model for in-hospital mortality after PCI was successfully developed using a contemporary multi-center registry. This model is an important tool for valid comparison of in-hospital mortality after PCI.

[1]  J. Chiota.  Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in New York State. , 1993, JAMA.

[2]  E. Hannan,et al.  Identification of variables needed to risk adjust outcomes of coronary interventions: evidence-based guidelines for efficient data collection. , 1998, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  Pliam,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Coronary Surgery Risk Stratification Models. , 1997, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[4]  T. Ryan,et al.  Multivariate prediction of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary interventions in 1994-1996. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  G. Mensah,et al.  Race, baseline characteristics, and clinical outcomes after coronary intervention: The New Approaches in Coronary Interventions (NACI) registry. , 2000, American heart journal.

[6]  Daniel B. Mark,et al.  TUTORIAL IN BIOSTATISTICS MULTIVARIABLE PROGNOSTIC MODELS: ISSUES IN DEVELOPING MODELS, EVALUATING ASSUMPTIONS AND ADEQUACY, AND MEASURING AND REDUCING ERRORS , 1996 .

[7]  David P Miller,et al.  Relation between lesion characteristics and risk with percutaneous intervention in the stent and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa era: An analysis of results from 10,907 lesions and proposal for new classification scheme. , 1999, Circulation.

[8]  E L Hannan,et al.  Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in New York State. Risk factors and outcomes. , 1992, JAMA.

[9]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[10]  David W. Hosmer,et al.  Applied Logistic Regression , 1991 .

[11]  A. Shroyer,et al.  Quality initiatives and the power of the database: what they are and how they run. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[12]  E L Hannan,et al.  New York State's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System: four years later. , 1994, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[13]  William S Weintraub,et al.  A contemporary overview of percutaneous coronary interventions. The American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR). , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Current Era Compared With 1985–1986: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Registries , 2000, Circulation.

[15]  F. Harrell,et al.  Prognostic/Clinical Prediction Models: Multivariable Prognostic Models: Issues in Developing Models, Evaluating Assumptions and Adequacy, and Measuring and Reducing Errors , 2005 .

[16]  L. Klein,et al.  Value of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association stenosis morphology classification for coronary interventions in the late 1990s. , 1998, The American journal of cardiology.

[17]  T. Ryan,et al.  Changing outcomes in percutaneous coronary interventions: a study of 34,752 procedures in northern New England, 1990 to 1997. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  S. Kimmel,et al.  A simplified lesion classification for predicting success and complications of coronary angioplasty. Registry Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Intervention. , 2000, The American journal of cardiology.

[19]  E. Topol,et al.  Analysis and comparison of operator-specific outcomes in interventional cardiology. From a multicenter database of 4860 quality-controlled procedures. , 1996, Circulation.

[20]  L Ohno-Machado,et al.  Simplified risk score models accurately predict the risk of major in-hospital complications following percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2001, The American journal of cardiology.

[21]  F H Edwards,et al.  1988: use of a Bayesian statistical model for risk assessment in coronary artery surgery. Updated in 1995. , 1995, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[22]  E. DeLong,et al.  Challenges in comparing risk-adjusted bypass surgery mortality results: results from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  A L Shroyer,et al.  The 1996 coronary artery bypass risk model: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac National Database. , 1998, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[24]  P. Steen,et al.  Approaches to predictive modeling. , 1994, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[25]  S. Kimmel,et al.  Development and validation of simplified predictive index for major complications in contemporary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty practice. The Registry Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[26]  F H Edwards,et al.  Coronary artery bypass grafting: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database experience. , 1994, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[27]  C D Naylor,et al.  Ready-made, recalibrated, or Remodeled? Issues in the use of risk indexes for assessing mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. , 1999, Circulation.

[28]  S. Kimmel,et al.  Development and validation of a simplified predictive index for major complications in contemporary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty practice , 1995 .

[29]  F L Grover,et al.  Continuous Assessment and Improvement in Quality of Care A Model from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cardiac Surgery , 1994, Annals of surgery.

[30]  E. Rocha.  Identification of variables needed to risk adjust outcomes of coronary interventions: evidence-based guidelines for efficient data collection. , 1998, Revista portuguesa de cardiologia : orgao oficial da Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia = Portuguese journal of cardiology : an official journal of the Portuguese Society of Cardiology.