Thukkani Arun K, Fonarow Gregg C, Cannon Christopher P, Cox Margueritte, Hernandez Adrian F, Peterson Eric D, Peacock W Frank, Laskey Warren K, Schwamm Lee H, Bhatt Deepak L
Heart and Vascular Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Clin Cardiol. 2014 May;37(5):285-92. doi: 10.1002/clc.22246. Epub 2014 Jan 22.
Revascularization availability at US hospitals varies and may impact care quality for acute coronary syndrome patients.
The hypothesis of this study was that there would be differences in care quality at Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease (GWTG-CAD) hospitals based on revascularization capability.
For acute coronary syndrome patients admitted to GWTG-CAD hospitals between 2000 and 2010, care quality at hospitals with or without revascularization capability was examined by assessing conformity with performance and quality measures.
This study included 95 999 acute coronary syndrome patients admitted to 310 GWTG-CAD hospitals. There were 89 000 patients admitted to 226 revascularization-capable hospitals and 6999 patients admitted to 84 hospitals without revascularization capability included. Adjusted multivariate analysis demonstrated that 8 of the 19 measures were more frequently performed in the revascularization cohort: aspirin (odds ratio [OR]: 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.92), clopidogrel (OR: 2.31, 95% CI: 1.78-3.00), lipid-lowering therapies at discharge (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.04-1.87), lipid-lowering therapies for low-density lipoprotein >100 mg/dL (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.23-2.77), achievement of blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.40), LDL recorded (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.05-2.06), and recommendations offered for physical activity (OR: 3.82, 95% CI: 2.23-6.55) or weight management (OR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.12-2.69).
The GWTG-CAD revascularization hospitals were associated with better performance in some, but not all, measures assessed. Although the difference in conformity between hospital types was modest for performance measures but more variable for quality measures, room for improvement exists in key aspects of care.
美国医院血管重建治疗的可及性存在差异,这可能会影响急性冠状动脉综合征患者的治疗质量。
本研究的假设是,在“遵循指南-冠心病(GWTG-CAD)”医院中,基于血管重建能力,治疗质量会存在差异。
对于2000年至2010年间入住GWTG-CAD医院的急性冠状动脉综合征患者,通过评估与性能和质量指标的符合情况,对具备或不具备血管重建能力的医院的治疗质量进行了检查。
本研究纳入了310家GWTG-CAD医院收治的95999例急性冠状动脉综合征患者。其中,226家具备血管重建能力的医院收治了89000例患者,84家不具备血管重建能力的医院收治了6999例患者。校正后的多变量分析表明,在19项指标中,有8项在血管重建队列中执行得更为频繁:阿司匹林(比值比[OR]:1.41,95%置信区间[CI]:1.04-1.92)、氯吡格雷(OR:2.31,95%CI:1.78-3.00)、出院时的降脂治疗(OR:1.39,95%CI:1.04-1.87)、低密度脂蛋白>100mg/dL时的降脂治疗(OR:1.85,95%CI:1.23-2.77)、血压控制在<140/90mmHg(OR:1.20,95%CI:1.03-1.40)、记录低密度脂蛋白(OR:1.47,95%CI:1.05-2.06),以及提供体育活动(OR:3.82,95%CI:2.23-6.55)或体重管理(OR:1.74,95%CI:1.12-2.69)的建议。
GWTG-CAD血管重建医院在某些但并非所有评估指标上表现更好。虽然不同类型医院在性能指标上的符合度差异不大,但在质量指标上差异更大,在关键治疗环节仍有改进空间。