Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine (D.S., M.S., H.S.G.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (D.S., M.P.T., D.S.L.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2021 Nov;14(11):e008242. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.121.008242. Epub 2021 Nov 9.
Despite its established benefit and strong endorsement in international guidelines, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) use remains low. Identifying determinants of CR referral and use may help develop targeted policies and quality improvement efforts. We evaluated the variation in CR referral and use across percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) hospitals and operators.
We performed a retrospective observational cohort study of all patients who underwent PCI at 48 nonfederal Michigan hospitals between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2018 and who had their PCI clinical registry record linked to administrative claims data. The primary outcomes included in-hospital CR referral and CR participation, defined as at least one outpatient CR visit within 90 days of discharge. Bayesian hierarchical regression models were fit to evaluate the association between PCI hospital and operator with CR referral and use after adjusting for patient characteristics.
Among 54 217 patients who underwent PCI, 76.3% received an in-hospital referral for CR, and 27.1% attended CR within 90 days after discharge. There was significant hospital and operator level variation in in-hospital CR referral with median odds ratios of 3.88 (95% credible interval [CI], 3.06-5.42) and 1.64 (95% CI, 1.55-1.75), respectively, and in CR participation with median odds ratios of 1.83 (95% CI, 1.63-2.15) and 1.40 (95% CI, 1.35-1.47), respectively. In-hospital CR referral was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of CR participation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.52-2.01]), and this association varied by treating PCI hospital (odds ratio range, 0.92-3.75) and operator (odds ratio range, 1.26-2.82).
In-hospital CR referral and 90-day CR use after PCI varied significantly by hospital and operator. The association of in-hospital CR referral with downstream CR use also varied across hospitals and less so across operators suggesting that specific hospitals and operators may more effectively translate CR referrals into downstream use. Understanding the factors that explain this variation will be critical to developing strategies to improve CR participation overall.
尽管心脏康复(CR)在国际指南中被证实有效且得到强烈认可,但它的应用仍然很低。确定 CR 转诊和使用的决定因素可能有助于制定有针对性的政策和质量改进措施。我们评估了经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)医院和术者之间 CR 转诊和使用的差异。
我们对 2012 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 3 月 31 日期间在密歇根州 48 家非联邦医院接受 PCI 的所有患者进行了回顾性观察队列研究,并将其 PCI 临床登记记录与行政索赔数据相关联。主要结局包括住院期间的 CR 转诊和 CR 参与,定义为出院后 90 天内至少有一次门诊 CR 就诊。在调整患者特征后,使用贝叶斯层次回归模型评估 PCI 医院和术者与 CR 转诊和使用之间的关联。
在接受 PCI 的 54217 名患者中,76.3%的患者在住院期间被转诊接受 CR,27.1%的患者在出院后 90 天内参加了 CR。医院和术者层面在住院期间 CR 转诊方面存在显著差异,中位数优势比分别为 3.88(95%可信区间[CI],3.06-5.42)和 1.64(95% CI,1.55-1.75),在 CR 参与方面存在显著差异,中位数优势比分别为 1.83(95% CI,1.63-2.15)和 1.40(95% CI,1.35-1.47)。住院期间的 CR 转诊与 CR 参与的可能性显著增加相关(调整后的优势比,1.75 [95% CI,1.52-2.01]),这种关联因治疗 PCI 医院(比值比范围,0.92-3.75)和术者(比值比范围,1.26-2.82)而异。
PCI 后住院期间的 CR 转诊和 90 天内 CR 使用率因医院和术者而异。住院期间的 CR 转诊与随后的 CR 使用之间的关联也因医院而异,而与术者的关联则较小,这表明特定的医院和术者可能更有效地将 CR 转诊转化为后续使用。了解解释这种差异的因素对于制定提高整体 CR 参与度的策略至关重要。