Developments in procedural and disease registries: A focus on coronary artery disease

Current Opinion in Cardiology

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 405-410

  Brieger, David ^a   Aliprandi Costa, Bernadette ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

coronary artery disease; practical clinical trials; quality improvement; registries

Indexed keywords

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DISEASE REGISTRY; DRUG ELUTING STENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; HUMANS; REGISTRIES;

EID: 84879971723     PISSN: 02684705     EISSN: 15317080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/HCO.0b013e328361e95a     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Hlatky MA, Douglas PS, Cook NL, et al. Future directions for cardiovascular disease comparative effectiveness research: reportofaworkshopsponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60:569-580.
2. Hannan EL, Kilburn H Jr, Lindsey ML, Lewis R. Clinical versus administrative databasesforCABG surgery. Does itmatter? Med Care 1992;30:892-907.
3. 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; 113:1683-1692.
4. Alpert JS. Acute coronary syndromes observed from an international per-spective [comment]. Eur Heart J 2002; 23:1139-1140.
5. Gitt AK, Bueno H, Danchin N, et al. The role ofcardiac registries in evidence-based medicine. Eur Heart J 2010; 31:525-529.
6. Bufalino VJ, Masoudi FA, Stranne SK, et al. The American Heart Association's recommendations for expanding the applications of existing andfutureclinical registries: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circula-tion 2011; 123:2167-2179.
7. Hannan EL, Cozzens K, King SB III, et al. The New York State cardiac registries: history, contributions, limitations, and lessons for future efforts to assess and publicly report healthcare outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59:2309-2316.
8. Narins CR, Dozier AM, Ling FS, Zareba W. The influence of public reporting of outcome data on medical decision making by physicians. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:83-87.
9. Burack JH, Impellizzeri P, Homel P, Cunningham JN Jr. Public reporting of surgical mortality: a survey of New York State cardiothoracic surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68:1195-1200; discussion 1201-1202.
10. Ellis C, Devlin G, Matsis P, et al. Acute Coronary Syndrome patients in New Zealand receive less invasive management when admitted to hospitals with-out invasive facilities. N Z Med J 2004; 117:U954.
11. The Grace Investigators. Rationale and design of the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) Project: a multinational registry of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J 2001; 141:190-199.
12. Al-Shahi R, Vousden C, Warlow C. Bias from requiring explicit consent from all participants in observational research: prospective, population based study. BMJ 2005; 331:942.
13. Jernberg T, Held C, Johanson P. Swedeheart 2011 Annual Report 2012.
14. McNeil J, Evans SM, Crammond B, Cameron PA. Guidelinesfortheestablish- ment and management of clinical registries. Draft version 2: the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Patient Safety 2008.
15. Steg PG, Fox KA, Eagle KA, et al. Mortality following placement of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents for ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Eur Heart J 2009; 30:321-329.
16. Thoburn KK, German RR, Lewis M, et al. Case completeness and data accuracy in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program ofCancer Registries. Cancer 2007; 109:1607-1616.
17. Messenger JC, Ho KKL, Young CH, et al. The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Data Quality Brief. The NCDR Data Quality Program in 2012. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60:1484-1488.
18. Aliprandi-Costa B, Ranasinghe I, Turnbull F, et al. The Design and Rationaleof the Australian Cooperative National Registry of Acute Coronary Care, Guideline Adherence and Clinical Events (CONCORDANCE). Heart Lung Circ 2013. (in press).
19. Gavalova L, Weston C. Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. Annual Public Report April 2011-March 2012. London; 2012.
20. Aliprandi-Costa B, Ranasinghe I, Chow V, et al. Managementand outcomesof patients with acute coronary syndromes in Australia and New Zealand. Med J Aust 2011; 195:116-121.
21. Evans SM, Bohensky M, Cameron PA, Mc Neil J.Asurvey of Australian clinical registries: can quality of care be measured? Intern Med J 2011; 41:42-48.
22. Fox KA, Steg PG, Eagle KA, et al. Decline in rates ofdeath and heartfailure in acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2007; 297:1892-1900.
23. Mehta RH, Roe MT, Chen AY, et al. Recent trends in the care of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: insights from the CRUSADE initiative. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:2027-2034.
24. Lewis WR, Peterson ED, Cannon CP, et al. An organized approach to improvement in guideline adherence for acute myocardial infarction: results with the Get With The Guidelines quality improvement program. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168:1813-1819.
25. Hannan EL, Sarrazin MS, Doran DR, Rosenthal GE. Provider profiling and quality improvement efforts in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the effect on short-term mortality among Medicare beneficiaries. Med Care 2003; 41:1164-1172.
26. Shahian DM, Torchiana DF, Shemin RJ, et al. Massachusetts cardiac surgery report card: implications of statistical methodology. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80:2106-2113.
27. Skolnick AH, Alexander KP, Chen AY, et al. Characteristics, management, and outcomes of 5557 patients age > or = 90 years with acute coronary syn-dromes: results from the CRUSADE Initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:1790-1797.
28. Medi C, Montalescot G, Budaj A, et al. Reperfusion in patients with renal dysfunction after presentation with ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block: GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events). JACC: Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2:26-33.
29. Daemen J, Wenaweser P, Tsuchida K, et al. Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study. Lancet 2007; 369:667-678.
30. Eagle KA, Goodman SG, Avezum A, et al. Practice variation and missed opportunities for reperfusion in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: findingsfromtheGlobal Registryof Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Lancet 2002; 359:373-377.
31. Ranasinghe I, Alprandi-Costa B, Chow V, et al. Riskstratification in thesetting of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol 2011; 108:617-624.
32. Subherwal S, Bach RG, Chen AY, et al. Baseline riskofmajorbleeding in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) Bleeding Score. Circula-tion 2009; 119:1873-1882.
33. Granger CB, Goldberg RJ, Dabbous O, et al. Predictorsof hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163:2345-2353.
34. Brieger D, Fox KA, Fitzgerald G, et al. Predicting freedom from clinical events in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Heart 2009; 95:888-894.
35. Newhouse JP, Mc Clellan M. Econometrics in outcomes research: the use of instrumental variables. Annu Rev Public Health 1998; 19:17-34.
36. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Sturmer T. Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006; 98:253-259.
37. Johnston SC, Henneman T, Mc Culloch CE, van der Laan M. Modeling treatment effects on binary outcomes with grouped-treatment variables and individual covariates. Am J Epidemiol 2002; 156:753-760.
38. Feit F, Brooks MM, Sopko G, et al. Long-term clinical outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry: comparison with the randomized trial. BARI Investigators. Circulation 2000; 101:2795-2802.
39. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290:1624-1632.
40. Carlhed R, Bojestig M, Peterson A, et al. Improved clinical outcome after acute myocardial infarction in hospitals participating in a Swedish quality improvement initiative. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2009; 2:458-464.
41. Frobert O, Lagerqvist B, Gudnason T, et al. Thrombus Aspiration in ST-Elevation myocardial infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE trial). A multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical registry trial based on the Swed-ish Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) platform. Study design and rationale. Am Heart J 2010; 160:1042-1048.
42. Roe MT, Messenger JC, Weintraub WS, et al. Treatments, trends, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction and percutaneous coronary inter-vention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:254-263.
43. Barron HV, Bowlby LJ, Breen T, et al. Use of reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction in the United States: data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2. Circulation 1998; 97:1150-1156.
44. Peterson ED, Shah BR, Parsons L, et al. Trends in quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction from 1990 to 2006. Am Heart J 2008; 156:1045-1055.
45. Harrington SE. Incentivizing Comparative Effectiveness Research 2011. https://hcmg.wharton.upenn.edu/files/?whdmsaction=public:main. [Acces-sed 15 April 2013]