Variation in Revascularization Practice and Outcomes in Asymptomatic Stable Ischemic Heart Disease.
Aged
Asymptomatic Diseases
Cardiovascular Agents
/ adverse effects
Coronary Artery Bypass
/ adverse effects
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Healthcare Disparities
/ trends
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Infarction
/ mortality
Ontario
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Practice Patterns, Physicians'
/ trends
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
health services research
revascularization
stable ischemic heart disease
variation
Journal
JACC. Cardiovascular interventions
ISSN: 1876-7605
Titre abrégé: JACC Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101467004
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 02 2019
11 02 2019
Historique:
received:
30
05
2018
revised:
19
09
2018
accepted:
30
10
2018
pubmed:
21
1
2019
medline:
26
3
2020
entrez:
21
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aims of this study were to assess variation in revascularization of asymptomatic patients with stable ischemic heart disease, identify the predictors of variation, and determine if it was associated with clinical outcomes. Management of stable ischemic heart disease in asymptomatic patients with obstructive coronary artery disease is controversial, potentially leading to practice variation. A retrospective observational cohort study was performed using population-based data from Ontario, Canada, in patients with asymptomatic stable ischemic heart disease and obstructive coronary artery disease. The cohort was divided on the basis of treatment strategy: revascularization or medical therapy. Hospitals were allocated into tertiles of their revascularization ratio. Outcomes included death and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to assess the predictors of revascularization, with median odds ratios used to quantify variation. Proportional hazards models were used to determine the association between management strategy and outcomes. The cohort included 9,897 patients, 47% treated with medical therapy and 53% with revascularization. Between hospitals, 2-fold variation existed in the ratio of revascularized to medically treated patients. However, the variation across hospitals was not explained by patient, physician, or hospital factors (median odds ratio in null model: 1.25; median odds ratio in full model: 1.31). Revascularization was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 0.96) for death and a hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.73) for myocardial infarction, with this benefit consistent across tertiles of revascularization ratio. Wide variation was observed in revascularization practice that was not explained by known factors. Despite this variation, a clinical benefit was observed with revascularization that was consistent across hospitals.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
The aims of this study were to assess variation in revascularization of asymptomatic patients with stable ischemic heart disease, identify the predictors of variation, and determine if it was associated with clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND
Management of stable ischemic heart disease in asymptomatic patients with obstructive coronary artery disease is controversial, potentially leading to practice variation.
METHODS
A retrospective observational cohort study was performed using population-based data from Ontario, Canada, in patients with asymptomatic stable ischemic heart disease and obstructive coronary artery disease. The cohort was divided on the basis of treatment strategy: revascularization or medical therapy. Hospitals were allocated into tertiles of their revascularization ratio. Outcomes included death and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to assess the predictors of revascularization, with median odds ratios used to quantify variation. Proportional hazards models were used to determine the association between management strategy and outcomes.
RESULTS
The cohort included 9,897 patients, 47% treated with medical therapy and 53% with revascularization. Between hospitals, 2-fold variation existed in the ratio of revascularized to medically treated patients. However, the variation across hospitals was not explained by patient, physician, or hospital factors (median odds ratio in null model: 1.25; median odds ratio in full model: 1.31). Revascularization was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 0.96) for death and a hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.73) for myocardial infarction, with this benefit consistent across tertiles of revascularization ratio.
CONCLUSIONS
Wide variation was observed in revascularization practice that was not explained by known factors. Despite this variation, a clinical benefit was observed with revascularization that was consistent across hospitals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30660456
pii: S1936-8798(18)32225-8
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.10.049
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cardiovascular Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
232-241Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.