Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Operator Profiles and Associations With In-Hospital Mortality.

Jacob A Doll, Adam J Nelson, Lisa A Kaltenbach, Daniel Wojdyla, Stephen W Waldo, Sunil V Rao, Tracy Y Wang
{"title":"Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Operator Profiles and Associations With In-Hospital Mortality.","authors":"Jacob A Doll,&nbsp;Adam J Nelson,&nbsp;Lisa A Kaltenbach,&nbsp;Daniel Wojdyla,&nbsp;Stephen W Waldo,&nbsp;Sunil V Rao,&nbsp;Tracy Y Wang","doi":"10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.010909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Percutaneous coronary intervention is performed by operators with differing experience, technique, and case mix. It is unknown if operator practice patterns impact patient outcomes. We sought to determine if a cluster algorithm can identify distinct profiles of percutaneous coronary intervention operators and if these profiles are associated with patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Operators performing at least 25 annual procedures between 2014 and 2018 were clustered using an agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared between clusters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 4 practice profiles among 7706 operators performing 2 937 419 procedures. Cluster 1 (n=3345) demonstrated case mix and practice patterns similar to the national median. Cluster 2 (n=1993) treated patients with lower clinical acuity and were less likely to use intracoronary diagnostics, atherectomy, and radial access. Cluster 3 (n=1513) had the lowest case volume, were more likely to work at rural hospitals, and cared for a higher proportion of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Cluster 4 (n=855) had the highest case volume, were most likely to treat patients with high anatomic complexity and use atherectomy, intracoronary diagnostics, and mechanical support. Compared with cluster 1, adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar for cluster 2 (estimated difference, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.04]), higher for cluster 3 (0.14 [0.07-0.22]), and lower for cluster 4 (-0.15 [-0.24 to -0.06]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Distinct percutaneous coronary intervention operator profiles are differentially associated with patient outcomes. A phenotypic approach to physician assessment may provide actionable feedback for quality improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":516631,"journal":{"name":"Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions","volume":" ","pages":"e010909"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.010909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention is performed by operators with differing experience, technique, and case mix. It is unknown if operator practice patterns impact patient outcomes. We sought to determine if a cluster algorithm can identify distinct profiles of percutaneous coronary intervention operators and if these profiles are associated with patient outcomes.

Methods: Operators performing at least 25 annual procedures between 2014 and 2018 were clustered using an agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared between clusters.

Results: We identified 4 practice profiles among 7706 operators performing 2 937 419 procedures. Cluster 1 (n=3345) demonstrated case mix and practice patterns similar to the national median. Cluster 2 (n=1993) treated patients with lower clinical acuity and were less likely to use intracoronary diagnostics, atherectomy, and radial access. Cluster 3 (n=1513) had the lowest case volume, were more likely to work at rural hospitals, and cared for a higher proportion of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Cluster 4 (n=855) had the highest case volume, were most likely to treat patients with high anatomic complexity and use atherectomy, intracoronary diagnostics, and mechanical support. Compared with cluster 1, adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar for cluster 2 (estimated difference, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.04]), higher for cluster 3 (0.14 [0.07-0.22]), and lower for cluster 4 (-0.15 [-0.24 to -0.06]).

Conclusions: Distinct percutaneous coronary intervention operator profiles are differentially associated with patient outcomes. A phenotypic approach to physician assessment may provide actionable feedback for quality improvement.

经皮冠状动脉介入手术操作者简介及其与院内死亡率的关系。
背景:经皮冠状动脉介入治疗是由不同经验、技术和病例组合的操作者进行的。目前尚不清楚操作者的操作模式是否会影响患者的预后。我们试图确定聚类算法是否可以识别经皮冠状动脉介入手术操作者的不同特征,以及这些特征是否与患者预后相关。方法:使用聚类分层聚类算法对2014年至2018年间至少进行25次年度手术的运营商进行聚类。比较各组间经风险调整的住院死亡率。结果:我们在执行2 937 419个程序的7706名操作员中确定了4个实践概况。第1组(n=3345)的病例组合和实践模式与全国中位数相似。第2组(n=1993)治疗临床锐度较低且较少使用冠状动脉内诊断、动脉粥样硬化切除术和桡动脉通路的患者。聚类3 (n=1513)的病例量最低,更有可能在农村医院工作,并且护理st段抬高型心肌梗死和心源性休克患者的比例更高。第4组(n=855)的病例量最高,最有可能治疗解剖复杂性高的患者,并使用动脉粥样硬化切除术、冠状动脉内诊断和机械支持。与聚类1相比,聚类2的调整后住院死亡率相似(估计差异为-0.03 [95% CI, -0.10至0.04]),聚类3的调整后住院死亡率较高(0.14[0.07-0.22]),聚类4的调整后住院死亡率较低(-0.15[-0.24至-0.06])。结论:不同的经皮冠状动脉介入手术操作者的背景与患者的预后有不同的相关性。表现型方法的医生评估可能提供可操作的反馈,以提高质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信