Indications for percutaneous coronary interventions performed in US hospitals: A report from the NCDR®

11Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: There are many factors hypothesized as contributing to overuse of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States, including financial ties between physicians and hospitals, but empirical data are lacking. We examined PCI indications in not-for-profit (NFP), major teaching, for-profit (FP), and physician-owned specialty hospitals. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 1,113,554 patients who underwent PCI in 694 hospitals (NFP 471, teaching 131, FP 79, specialty 13) participating in the CathPCI Registry® between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2007. Percutaneous coronary intervention indications derived from American College of Cardiology Guidelines were classified as survival benefit (patients with primary reperfusion for ST-elevation myocardial infarction), potential quality of life benefit (patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), positive stress test, or chest pain), or unclear indications (patients receiving PCI without an obvious potential survival or quality of life benefit). Results: The percentage of PCI performed for unclear indications was somewhat higher for specialty hospitals (5.1% of all procedures) as compared with other hospital categories (FP 4.7%, NFP 4.2%, major teaching 4.5%; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cram, P., House, J. A., Messenger, J. C., Piana, R. N., Horwitz, P. A., & Spertus, J. A. (2012). Indications for percutaneous coronary interventions performed in US hospitals: A report from the NCDR®. American Heart Journal, 163(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2011.08.024

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free