Ross Joseph S, Ho Vivian, Wang Yongfei, Cha Stephen S, Epstein Andrew J, Masoudi Frederick A, Nallamothu Brahmajee K, Krumholz Harlan M
Department of Geriatrics and Adult Development, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Pl, Box 1070, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Circulation. 2007 Feb 27;115(8):1012-9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.658377. Epub 2007 Feb 5.
Certificate of need (CON) regulation was introduced to control healthcare costs and improve quality of care in part by limiting the number of facilities providing complex medical care. Our objective was to examine whether rates of appropriate cardiac catheterization after admission for acute myocardial infarction varied between states with and without CON regulation of cardiac catheterization.
We performed a retrospective analysis of chart-abstracted data for 137,279 Medicare patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction between 1994 and 1996 at 4179 US acute-care hospitals. Using 3-level hierarchical generalized linear modeling adjusted for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and physician and hospital characteristics, we compared catheterization rates within 60 days of admission for states (and the District of Columbia) with (n=32) and without (n=19) CON regulation in the full cohort and stratified by catheterization appropriateness. Appropriateness was categorized as strongly, equivocally, or weakly indicated. We found CON regulation was associated with a borderline-significant lower rate of catheterization overall (45.8% versus 46.5%; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.00, P=0.06). After stratification by appropriateness, CON regulation was not associated with a significantly lower rate of catheterization among 63,823 patients with strong indications (49.9% versus 50.3%; adjusted RR 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.02, P=0.17). However, CON regulation was associated with significantly lower rates of catheterization among 65,077 patients with equivocal indication (45.0% versus 46.0%; adjusted RR 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.00, P=0.05) and among 8379 patients with weak indications (19.8% versus 21.8%; adjusted RR 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.98, P=0.04). Associations were weakened substantially after adjustment for hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery or cardiac catheterization capability.
CON regulation was associated with modestly lower rates of equivocally and weakly indicated cardiac catheterization after admission for acute myocardial infarction, but no significant differences existed in rates of strongly indicated catheterization.
需求证明(CON)监管旨在控制医疗成本并部分通过限制提供复杂医疗服务的机构数量来提高医疗质量。我们的目的是研究在有和没有对心脏导管插入术进行CON监管的州之间,急性心肌梗死入院后适当心脏导管插入术的发生率是否存在差异。
我们对1994年至1996年期间在美国4179家急性护理医院因急性心肌梗死入院的137279名医疗保险患者的病历摘要数据进行了回顾性分析。使用针对患者社会人口统计学和临床特征以及医生和医院特征进行调整的三级分层广义线性模型,我们比较了在全队列中以及按导管插入术适宜性分层的情况下,有(n = 32)和没有(n = 19)CON监管的州(以及哥伦比亚特区)入院后60天内的导管插入术发生率。适宜性分为强烈、不明确或弱指征。我们发现CON监管总体上与导管插入术发生率略低相关(45.8%对46.5%;调整后的风险比[RR]为0.91,95%置信区间为0.82至1.00,P = 0.06)。按适宜性分层后,在63823名有强烈指征的患者中,CON监管与导管插入术发生率显著降低无关(49.9%对50.3%;调整后的RR为0.94,95%置信区间为0.86至1.02,P = 0.17)。然而,在65077名有不明确指征的患者中,CON监管与导管插入术发生率显著降低相关(45.0%对46.0%;调整后的RR为0.88,95%置信区间为0.78至1.00,P = 0.05),在8379名有弱指征的患者中也是如此(19.8%对21.8%;调整后的RR为0.84,95%置信区间为0.71至0.98,P = 0.04)。在对医院冠状动脉搭桥手术或心脏导管插入术能力进行调整后,这种关联大幅减弱。
CON监管与急性心肌梗死入院后不明确和弱指征心脏导管插入术的发生率适度降低相关,但在强烈指征的导管插入术发生率方面没有显著差异。