Linkage Between Databases in Joint Arthroplasty and Orthopaedics: The Way Forward?

Each large observational database contains specific data elements. The number of data elements are chosen carefully to cover the essential needs of the database as well as to avoid excessive burden of collection. Frequently, an important study question cannot be answered because one database does not contain some essential data elements. This deficiency may be present because the proposed study is cross-disciplinary, because the study requires more granular information on a specific topic than is practical to collect in a broad-based registry, or because the relevant questions, and hence essential data elements, have changed over time. An obvious way to overcome some such challenges, when one database contains some of the information and another contains the further needed data, is to link different databases. While the prospect of linking databases is appealing, the practicalities of doing so often are daunting. Challenges may be practical (information-technology barriers to crosstalk between the registries), legal, and financial. In the first section of this paper, Dr. Nathanael Heckmann discusses linking large orthopaedic databases, focusing on linking databases with detailed, short-term data to those with longer-term longitudinal data. In the second part of this paper, Nathan Glusenkamp discusses efforts to link the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) to other data sources, an ambition not yet fully realized but one that will bear fruit in the near future.

Gender disparities in cardiovascular care access and delivery in India: Insights from the American College of Cardiology's PINNACLE India Quality Improvement Program (PIQIP).

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available to assess whether access to and quality of cardiovascular disease (CVD) care are comparable among men and women in India. We analyzed data from the American College of Cardiology's PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) India Quality Improvement Program (PIQIP) to evaluate gender disparities in CVD care delivery. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2015, we collected data on performance measures for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=14,010), heart failure (HF) (n=11,965) and atrial fibrillation (AF) (n=496) in PIQIP, among 17 participating practices. The total number of women was 31,796 (32.0%). Women had fewer total encounters compared to men during the study interval (mean number of encounters=2.59 vs. 2.82 for women and men, respectively, p≤0.001). Women were significantly younger (48.9years vs. 51.5years, p≤0.01), but had a higher co-morbidity burden compared to men - hypertension (62.0% vs. 45.6%, p≤0.01), diabetes (39.4% vs. 35%, p≤0.01), and hyperlipidemia (3.7% vs. 3.1%, p=0.19). On the contrary, the guideline-directed medication prescriptions were strikingly lower in women with CAD compared to men - aspirin (38% vs. 50.4%, p≤0.001), aspirin or thienopyridine combination (46.9% vs. 57.2%, p≤0.001), and beta-blockers (36.8% vs. 47.8%, p≤0.001). Similarly, among women with ejection fraction ≤40%, the use of guideline-directed medical therapy was significantly lower compared to men for beta-blockers (30.8% vs. 37.0%, p≤0.001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (29.3% vs. 34.9%, p≤0.001), and beta-blockers/ACE-i or ARBs (24.6% vs. 31.0%, p≤0.001). Among patients with atrial fibrillation and CHADS2 score≥2, more women were on oral anticoagulation (19.6% vs. 14.6%, p=0.34), although this was not significantly different, and the overall number of patients with atrial fibrillation was low. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significantly higher co-morbidity burden in women, we found fewer women receiving guideline-directed medical therapy for CVD compared with men. If such disparities are confirmed in the larger Indian population, it is important to find potential causes for, and seek solutions to narrow this gap.

Guideline-Directed Medication Use in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in India: American College of Cardiology's PINNACLE India Quality Improvement Program.

Little is known about the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in outpatients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF; ≤40%) in India. Our objective was to understand the use of GDMT in outpatients with HFrEF in India. The Practice Innovation And Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) India Quality Improvement Program (PIQIP) is a registry for cardiovascular quality improvement in India supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Between January 2008 and September 2014, we evaluated documentation of use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ß-blockers, or both, among outpatients with HFrEF seeking care in 10 centers enrolled in the PIQIP registry. Among 75 639 patients in the PIQIP registry, 34 995 had EF reported, and 15 870 had an EF ≤40%. The mean age was 56 years; 23% were female. Hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and myocardial infarction were present in 37%, 23%, 27%, and 17%, respectively. Use of ACEIs/ARBs, ß-blockers, and both were documented in 33.5%, 34.9%, and 29.6% of patients, respectively. The documentation of GDMT was higher in men, in patients age ≥65 years, and in those with presence of hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease. Documentation of GDMT gradually increased over the study period. Among patients enrolled in the PIQIP registry, about two-thirds of patients with EF ≤40% did not have documented receipt of GDMT. This study is an initial step toward improving adherence to GDMT in India and highlights the feasibility of examining quality of care in HFrEF in a resource-limited setting.

American College of Cardiology (ACC)'s PINNACLE India Quality Improvement Program (PIQIP)-Inception, progress and future direction: A report from the PIQIP Investigators.

Cardiovascular diseases have surpassed infectious disorders to become the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in India.1 A national-level registry comprehensively documenting the current-day prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and disease burden among patients seeking care in the outpatient setting in India is currently non-existent. With a burgeoning urban population, the cardiovascular disease burden in India is set to skyrocket, with an estimated 18 million productive years of life lost by 2030.2 While there are limited quality improvement registries in India, for example, the Kerala acute coronary syndrome and Trivandrum heart failure registries, their focus is on in-patient care quality improvement, while the vast majority of patients with cardiovascular diseases worldwide, including India, interact with the health care system in the outpatient setting.3,4 Recognizing this unmet need, the American College of Cardiology partnered with local stakeholders in India to establish India's first outpatient cardiovascular disease performance measurement initiative in 2011, the PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) India Quality Improvement Program (PIQIP).5 This manuscript discusses the inception of the PIQIP registry, the progress it has made and challenges thus far, and its future direction and the promise it holds for cardiovascular care quality improvement in India.

Cardiovascular Disease Performance Measures in the Outpatient Setting in India: Insights From the American College of Cardiology's PINNACLE India Quality Improvement Program (PIQIP).

BACKGROUND: India has a growing burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD), yet data on the quality of outpatient care for patients with coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation in India are very limited. We collected data on performance measures for 68 196 unique patients from 10 Indian cardiology outpatient departments from January 1, 2011, to February 5, 2014, in the American College of Cardiology's PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) India Quality Improvement Program (PIQIP). PIQIP is India's first national outpatient CVD quality-improvement program. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the PIQIP registry, we estimated the prevalence of CVD risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and current tobacco use) and CVD among outpatients. We examined adherence with performance measures established by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Medical Association Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement for coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. There were a total of 68 196 patients (155 953 patient encounters), with a mean age of 50.6 years (SD 18.2 years). Hypertension was present in 29.7% of patients, followed by diabetes (14.9%), current tobacco use (7.6%), and dyslipidemia (6.5%). Coronary artery disease was present in 14.8%, heart failure was noted in 4.0%, and atrial fibrillation was present in 0.5% of patients. Among eligible patients, the reported use of medications was as follows: aspirin in 48.6%, clopidogrel in 37.1%, and statin-based lipid-lowering therapy in 50.6% of patients with coronary artery disease; RAAS (renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system) antagonist in 61.9% and beta-blockers in 58.1% of patients with heart failure; and oral anticoagulants in 37.0% of patients with atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study, initiated to improve outpatient CVD care in India, presents our preliminary results and barriers to data collection and demonstrates that such an initiative is feasible in a resource-limited environment. In addition, we attempted to outline areas for further improvement in outpatient CVD care delivery in India.