Association of Statewide Certificate of Need Regulations With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Appropriateness and Outcomes.
Aged
Certificate of Need
/ statistics & numerical data
Coronary Artery Disease
/ surgery
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Hospitals
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Selection
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ legislation & jurisprudence
Quality Assurance, Health Care
Registries
Retrospective Studies
United States
appropriateness criteria
outcomes research
percutaneous coronary intervention
Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
ISSN: 2047-9980
Titre abrégé: J Am Heart Assoc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 01 2019
22 01 2019
Historique:
entrez:
16
1
2019
pubmed:
16
1
2019
medline:
4
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background Certificate of need ( CON ) regulations are intended to coordinate new healthcare services, limit expansion of unnecessary new infrastructure, and limit healthcare costs. However, there is limited information about the association of CON regulations with the appropriateness and outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions ( PCI ). The study sought to characterize the association between state CON regulations and PCI appropriateness. Methods and Results We used data from the American College of Cardiology's Cath PCI Registry to analyze 1 268 554 PCI s performed at 1297 hospitals between January 2010 and December 2011. We used the Appropriate Use Criteria to classify PCI procedures as appropriate, maybe appropriate, or rarely appropriate and used Chi-square analyses to assess whether the proportions of PCI s in each Appropriate Use Criteria category varied depending on whether the procedure had been performed in a state with or without CON regulations. Analyses were repeated stratified by whether or not the procedure had been performed in the setting of an acute coronary syndrome ( ACS ). Among 1 268 554 PCI procedures, 674 384 (53.2%) were performed within 26 CON states. The proportion of PCI s classified as rarely appropriate in CON states was slightly lower compared with non- CON states (3.7% versus 4.0%, P<0.01). Absolute differences were larger among non- ACS PCI (23.1% versus 25.0% [ P<0.01]) and were not statistically significantly different in ACS (0.62% versus 0.63% [ P>0.05]). Conclusions States with CON had lower proportions of rarely appropriate PCI s, but the absolute differences were small. These findings suggest that CON regulations alone may not limit rarely appropriate PCI among patients with and without ACS .
Identifiants
pubmed: 30642222
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.010373
pmc: PMC6497347
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e010373Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : K12 HS023000
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Heart. 2013 Mar;99(5):297-303
pubmed: 23322530
Am J Med Qual. 2001 Sep-Oct;16(5):155-60
pubmed: 11591014
JAMA. 2011 Jul 6;306(1):53-61
pubmed: 21730241
Am Heart J. 2004 Mar;147(3):442-8
pubmed: 14999192
JAMA. 2002 Oct 16;288(15):1859-66
pubmed: 12377084
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Aug;6(8):790-9
pubmed: 23968699
JAMA. 2006 May 10;295(18):2141-7
pubmed: 16684984
Eur Heart J. 2002 Aug;23(15):1177-89
pubmed: 12127920
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Feb 28;59(9):857-81
pubmed: 22296741
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Sep;6(9):897-904
pubmed: 24050858
Circulation. 2006 Nov 14;114(20):2122-9
pubmed: 17075012
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jan 22;8(2):e010373
pubmed: 30642222
Circulation. 2007 Feb 27;115(8):1012-9
pubmed: 17283258
JAMA. 2015 Nov 17;314(19):2045-53
pubmed: 26551163
Am Heart J. 2007 Oct;154(4):767-75
pubmed: 17893007
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Nov 6;60(19):1876-84
pubmed: 23062534