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, Adam J Nelson, Lisa A Kaltenbach, Daniel Wojdyla, Stephen W Waldo, Sunil V Rao, 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.