Hospital and Operator Variation in Cardiac Rehabilitation Referral and Participation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Despite its established benefit and strong endorsement in international guidelines, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) use remains low. Identifying determinants of CR referral and use may help develop targeted policies and quality improvement efforts. We evaluated the variation in CR referral and use across percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) hospitals and operators. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study of all patients who underwent PCI at 48 nonfederal Michigan hospitals between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2018 and who had their PCI clinical registry record linked to administrative claims data. The primary outcomes included in-hospital CR referral and CR participation, defined as at least one outpatient CR visit within 90 days of discharge. Bayesian hierarchical regression models were fit to evaluate the association between PCI hospital and operator with CR referral and use after adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among 54 217 patients who underwent PCI, 76.3% received an in-hospital referral for CR, and 27.1% attended CR within 90 days after discharge. There was significant hospital and operator level variation in in-hospital CR referral with median odds ratios of 3.88 (95% credible interval [CI], 3.06-5.42) and 1.64 (95% CI, 1.55-1.75), respectively, and in CR participation with median odds ratios of 1.83 (95% CI, 1.63-2.15) and 1.40 (95% CI, 1.35-1.47), respectively. In-hospital CR referral was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of CR participation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.52-2.01]), and this association varied by treating PCI hospital (odds ratio range, 0.92-3.75) and operator (odds ratio range, 1.26-2.82). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital CR referral and 90-day CR use after PCI varied significantly by hospital and operator. The association of in-hospital CR referral with downstream CR use also varied across hospitals and less so across operators suggesting that specific hospitals and operators may more effectively translate CR referrals into downstream use. Understanding the factors that explain this variation will be critical to developing strategies to improve CR participation overall.

Multimodality Intracoronary Imaging With Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Intravascular Ultrasound in Asymptomatic Individuals With High Calcium Scores.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to determine the frequency of large lipid-rich plaques (LRP) in the coronary arteries of individuals with high coronary artery calcium scores (CACS) and to determine whether the CACS correlates with coronary lipid burden. METHODS AND RESULTS: Combined near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound was performed in 57 vessels in 20 asymptomatic individuals (90% on statins) with no prior history of coronary artery disease who had a screening CACS ≥300 Agatston units. Among 268 10-mm coronary segments, near-infrared spectroscopy images were analyzed for LRP, defined as a bright yellow block on the near-infrared spectroscopy block chemogram. Lipid burden was assessed as the lipid core burden index (LCBI), and large LRP were defined as a maximum LCBI in 4 mm ≥400. Vessel plaque volume was measured by quantitative intravascular ultrasound. Vessel-level CACS significantly correlated with plaque volume by intravascular ultrasound (r=0.69; P<0.0001) but not with LCBI by near-infrared spectroscopy (r=0.24; P=0.07). Despite a high CACS, no LRP was detected in 8 (40.0%) subjects. Large LRP having a maximum LCBI in 4 mm ≥400 were infrequent, found in only 5 (25.0%) of 20 subjects and in only 5 (1.9%) of 268 10-mm coronary segments analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with a CACS ≥300 Agatston units mostly on statins, CACS correlated with total plaque volume but not LCBI. This observation may have implications on coronary risk among individuals with a high CACS considering that it is coronary LRP, rather than calcification, that underlies the majority of acute coronary events.

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

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.

Effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation among older patients after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction, yet little is known about the impact of cardiac rehabilitation on medication adherence and clinical outcomes among contemporary older adults. The optimal number of cardiac rehabilitation sessions is not clear. METHODS: We linked patients 65years or older enrolled in the Acute Coronary Treatment Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines (ACTION Registry-GWTG) from January 2007 to December 2010 to Medicare longitudinal claims data to obtain 1 year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 11,862 patients participated in cardiac rehabilitation after acute myocardial infarction, attending a median number of 26 sessions. Patients attending ≥26 sessions were more likely to be male, had lesser prevalence of comorbid conditions and prior revascularization, and were more likely to present with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, compared with patients attending 1 to 25 sessions. Among patients with Medicare Part D prescription coverage, increasing number of cardiac rehabilitation sessions was associated with improvement in adherence to secondary prevention medications such as P2Y12 inhibitors and ß-blockers. Each 5-session increase in participation was associated with lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.92) and lower overall risk of major adverse cardiac event (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73) and death/readmission (adjusted HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: In this older patient population, number of cardiac rehabilitation sessions attended was associated with improved medication adherence and lower downstream cardiovascular risk in a dose-response relationship. This provides support for the continued use of cardiac rehabilitation for older adults and encourages efforts to maximize attendance.

Predictors of early and late enrollment in cardiac rehabilitation, among those referred, after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a Class I recommendation. Although referral to CR after an AMI has recently become a performance measure, many patients may not participate. To illuminate potential barriers to participation, we examined the prevalence of, and patient-related factors associated with, CR participation within 1 and 6 months after an AMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 2096 AMI patients enrolled from 19 US sites in the Prospective Registry Evaluating outcomes after Myocardial Infarction: Events and Recovery (PREMIER) registry. Analyses were limited to those patients referred for CR at the time of AMI hospitalization. A multivariable, conditional logistic regression model, stratified by hospital, was used to identify sociodemographic, comorbidity, and clinical factors independently associated with CR participation within 1 and 6 months of AMI hospital discharge. Only 29% (419/1450) and 48.25% (650/1347) of AMI patients who received referral for CR participated within 1 and 6 months after discharge, respectively. Women (odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.86), uninsured (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-0.71), and patients with hypertension (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.78) and peripheral arterial disease (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.85) were less likely to participate at 1 month. At 6 months after AMI, older patients (OR, 0.85 for each 10-year increment; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97), smokers (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80), and patients with economic burden (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81) were less likely to participate. Caucasians (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.16-2.58) and educated patients (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.42-2.30) were more likely to participate at 6 months. Patients with previous percutaneous interventions were less likely to participate at both 1 and 6 months post-AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients referred for CR post-AMI, participation remains low both at 1 and 6 months after AMI. Because CR is associated with beneficial changes in cardiovascular risk factors and better outcomes after AMI, more aggressive efforts are needed to increase CR participation after referral.

Does gadolinium-based angiography protect against contrast-induced nephropathy?: a systematic review of the literature.

UNLABELLED: We evaluated the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients exposed to gadolinium for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures. BACKGROUND: CIN with iodinated contrast agents is a leading cause of acute renal failure. Gadolinium is often used as an alternative to iodinated contrast in patients at increased risk of CIN. The safety of gadolinium in patients at increased risk of CIN has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: The authors performed a systematic review by searching MEDLINE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant studies evaluating gadolinium and its associated incidence of CIN. They identified 17 studies that reported both favorable and negative results with regard to the association of gadolinium and CIN. The differences in the results appeared to be dose related. When gadolinium was used in doses of 0.4 mmol/kg or higher, there appeared to be an increased incidence of ARF particularly in patients with preexisting renal insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence base is limited, gadolinium does not appear to be safer than iodinated contrast in patients at risk of CIN. Given the lack of randomized data to support its safety, gadolinium in lieu of iso-osmolar iodinated contrast cannot be advocated in patients at high risk of contrast nephropathy.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for restenosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting stents (DESs) with bare metal stents (BMSs) showed a marked decrease in in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization with DESs in the total patient population enrolled in the studies, including patients with diabetes. However, it remains unclear whether the antirestenotic benefit of DESs is preserved in the high-risk diabetic subgroup. MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Current Contents, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and recent Scientific Sessions databases were searched to identify relevant clinical trials comparing DESs with BMSs. A randomized controlled trial was included if it provided outcome data for patients with diabetes for > or =1 of the following: late lumen loss, in-stent restenosis, or target lesion revascularization. Data were combined using fixed-effects models, and standard tests for heterogeneity were performed. Eight studies with 1,520 patients with diabetes were identified that reported > or =1 outcome of interest. Mean late lumen losses (7 studies) were 0.93 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.510 to 1.348) with BMSs and 0.18 mm (95% CI -0.088 to +0.446) with DESs. For patients receiving a DES, this translated into a marked decrease in in-stent restenosis (7 studies, RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.22, p <0.001) and target lesion revascularization (8 studies, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.45, p <0.001). DES use is associated with a marked decrease in in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization in patients with diabetes. In conclusion, the analysis supports the current widespread use of DESs in these high-risk patients.