Differences in patient survival after acute myocardial infarction by hospital capability of performing percutaneous coronary intervention: Implications for regionalization

Archives of Internal Medicine

Volumn 170, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 433-439

  Chen, Jersey ^a,b   Krumholz, Harlan M ^a,b   Wang, Yun ^b   Curtis, Jeptha P ^a,b   Rathore, Saif S ^a   Ross, Joseph S ^c,d   Normand, Sharon Lise T ^e,f   Schreiner, Geoffrey C ^b   Mulvey, Gregory ^b   Nallamothu, Brahmajee K ^g  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH INSURANCE; HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL ADMISSION; HOSPITAL CARE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICARE; MORTALITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGIONALIZATION; SURVIVAL; UNITED STATES; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEART INFARCTION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REGISTER; STANDARD; SURVIVAL RATE; TRANSLUMINAL CORONARY ANGIOPLASTY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANGIOPLASTY, TRANSLUMINAL, PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY; FEMALE; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; MALE; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REGISTRIES; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77950355044     PISSN: 00039926     EISSN: 15383679     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.538     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Califf RM, Faxon DP. Need for centers to care for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2003;107(11):1467-1470. (Pubitemid 36378481)
2. Topol EJ, Kereiakes DJ. Regionalization of care for acute ischemic heart disease: a call for specialized centers. Circulation. 2003;107(11):1463-1466.
3. Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al; DANAMI-2 Investigators. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(8):733-742.
4. Grines CL, Westerhausen DR Jr, Grines LL, et al; Air PAMI Study Group. A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(11):1713-1719.
5. Widimský P, Budesínský T, Vorác D, et al; 'PRAGUE' Study Group Investigators. Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: final results of the randomized national multicentre trial-PRAGUE-2. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(1):94-104. (Pubitemid 36109551)
6. Rathore SS, Epstein AJ, Volpp KG, Krumholz HM. Regionalization of care for acute coronary syndromes: more evidence is needed. JAMA. 2005;293(11):1383-1387. (Pubitemid 40381492)
7. Wright SM, Daley J, Peterson ED, Thibault GE. Outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in the Department of Veterans Affairs: does regionalization of health care work? Med Care. 1997;35(2):128-141. (Pubitemid 127457082)
8. Epstein AJ, Rathore SS, Krumholz HM, Volpp KG. Volume-based referral for cardiovascular procedures in the United States: a cross-sectional regression analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5:42.
9. World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2009.
10. Pope GC, Kautter J, Ellis RP, et al. Risk adjustment of Medicare capitation payments using the CMS-HCC model. Health Care Financ Rev. 2004;25(4):119-141. (Pubitemid 39201560)
11. Wennberg DE. Dartmouth Atlas of Cardiovascular Health Care. Chicago, IL: Health Forum Publishing Co; 2000.
12. Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Mattera JA, et al. An administrative claims model suitable for profiling hospital performance based on 30-day mortality rates among patients with an acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2006;113(13):1683-1692. (Pubitemid 43754230)
13. Shahian DM, Torchiana DF, Shemin RJ, Rawn JD, Normand SL. Massachusetts cardiac surgery report card: implications of statistical methodology. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80(6):2106-2113. (Pubitemid 41718036)
14. Alter DA, Naylor CD, Austin PC, Tu JV. Long-term MI outcomes at hospitals with or without on-site revascularization. JAMA. 2001;285(16):2101-2108.
15. Every NR, Parsons LS, Fihn SD, et al. Long-term outcome in acute myocardial infarction patients admitted to hospitals with and without on-site cardiac catheterization facilities: MITI Investigators: Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention. Circulation. 1997;96(6):1770-1775.
16. Every NR, Larson EB, Litwin PE, et al; Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Project Investigators. The association between on-site cardiac catheterization facilities and the use of coronary angiography after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(8):546-551.
17. Halabi AR, Beck CA, Eisenberg MJ, Richard H, Pilote L. Impact of on-site cardiac catheterization on resource utilization and fatal and non-fatal outcomes after acute myocardial infarction. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:148. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-148. (Pubitemid 44831940)
18. Krumholz HM, Chen J, Murillo JE, Cohen DJ, Radford MJ. Admission to hospitals with on-site cardiac catheterization facilities: impact on long-term costs and outcomes. Circulation. 1998;98(19):2010-2016. (Pubitemid 28512225)
19. Peterson ED, Ohman EM, Brindis RG, Cohen DJ, Magid DJ. Development of systems of care for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients: evaluation and outcomes. Circulation. 2007;116(2):e64-e67.
20. Bradley EH, Herrin J, Wang Y, et al. Strategies for reducing the door-to-balloon time in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(22):2308-2320.