The role of hospital volume in coronary artery bypass grafting: is more always better?

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether outcomes of nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) differed between low- and high-volume hospitals in patients at different levels of surgical risk. BACKGROUND: Regionalizing all CABG surgeries from low- to high-volume hospitals could improve surgical outcomes but reduce patient access and choice. "Targeted" regionalization could be a reasonable alternative, however, if subgroups of patients that would clearly benefit from care at high-volume hospitals could be identified. METHODS: We assessed outcomes of CABG at 56 U.S. hospitals using 1997 administrative and clinical data from Solucient EXPLORE, a national outcomes benchmarking database. Predicted in-hospital mortality rates for subjects were calculated using a logistic regression model, and subjects were classified into five groups based on surgical risk: minimal (< 0.5%), low (0.5% to 2%), moderate (2% to 5%), high (5% to 20%), and severe (> or =20%). We assessed differences in in-hospital mortality, hospital costs and length of stay between low- and high-volume facilities (defined as > or =200 annual cases) in each of the five risk groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,029 subjects who underwent CABG at 25 low-volume hospitals and 11,615 subjects who underwent CABG at 31 high-volume hospitals were identified. Significant differences in in-hospital mortality were seen between low- and high-volume facilities in subjects at moderate (5.3% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.007) and high risk (22.6% vs. 11.9%; p = 0.0026) but not in those at minimal, low or severe risk. Hospital costs and lengths of stay were similar across each of the five risk groups. Based on these results, targeted regionalization of subjects at moderate risk or higher to high-volume hospitals would have resulted in an estimated 370 transfers and avoided 16 deaths; in contrast, full regionalization would have led to 2,029 transfers and avoided 20 deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted regionalization might be a feasible strategy for balancing the clinical benefits of regionalization with patients' desires for choice and access.

Coronary artery bypass grafting in Native Americans: a higher risk of death compared to other ethnic groups?

BACKGROUND: While the efficacy and safety of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been established in several clinical trials, little is known about its outcomes in Native Americans. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed clinical outcomes associated with CABG in 155 Native Americans using a national database of 18,061 patients from 25 nongovernmental, not-for-profit U.S. health care facilities. Patients were classified into five groups: 1) Native American, 2) white, 3) African American, 4) Hispanic, and 5) Asian. We evaluated for ethnic differences in in-hospital mortality and length of stay, and after adjusting for age, gender, surgical priority, case-mix severity, insurance status, and facility characteristics (volume, location, and teaching status). Overall, we found the adjusted risk for in-hospital death to be higher in Native Americans when compared to whites (odds ratio [OR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 9.8), African Americans (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 9.9), Hispanics (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, 2.5 to 20.3), and Asians (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.0). No significant differences were found in length of stay after adjustment across ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of in-hospital death following CABG may be higher in Native Americans than in other ethnic groups. Given the small number of Native Americans in the database (n = 155), however, further research will be needed to confirm these findings.

Case of the month.

Each month, we will present a challenging Case of the Month for Green Journal readers, who must use their clinical acumen to arrive at the correct answer. We will also post the case each month on the Journal's web site (http://www.elsevier.com/ajmselect). Several possible answers may be consistent with the case presentation; use your best judgment. Please send your answer (one per respondent) to The Green Journal at editors@amjmed.org or via FAX to (415) 447-2799. Indicate the case to which you are responding and include your complete address. The correct answer will appear in the next issue of the Journal. The first five persons who submit correct answers will receive a free one-year subscription to the Journal. Because of the volume of answers we receive, neither correct nor incorrect answers can be individually acknowledged. Colleagues of Drs. Green, Nallamothu, and Shea are not eligible for this month's case. If you would like to contribute a case, please submit a brief synopsis (<250 words) to the editorial office.

Electron-beam computed tomography in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Electron-beam computed tomography (EBCT) is a new, noninvasive method of detecting coronary artery calcification that is being increasingly advocated as a diagnostic test for coronary artery disease (CAD). Before its clinical use is justified, however, the overall accuracy of EBCT must be better defined. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the accuracy of EBCT in diagnosing obstructive CAD. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from January 1, 1979, through February 29, 2000, were retrieved using MEDLINE and Current Contents databases, bibliographies, and expert consultation. STUDY SELECTION: We included a study if it (1) used EBCT as a diagnostic test; (2) reported cases in absolute numbers of true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative results; and (3) used coronary angiography as the reference standard for diagnosing obstructive CAD (defined as > or = 50% diameter stenosis). DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from the included articles by 2 independent reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: Weighted pooled analysis and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used to determine sensitivity and specificity rates. Results from 9 studies with 1662 subjects were included. Pooled sensitivity for EBCT was 92.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.7%-94.0%) and pooled specificity was 51.2% (95% CI, 47.5%-54.9%). Maximum joint sensitivity and specificity for EBCT from its summary ROC curve was 75%. As the threshold for defining an abnormal test varied, sensitivity and specificity changed. For a threshold that resulted in a sensitivity of 90%, specificity was 54%; when sensitivity was 80%, specificity rose to 71%. CONCLUSION: The performance of EBCT as a diagnostic test for obstructive CAD is reasonable based on sensitivity and specificity rates from its summary ROC curve.

Potential clinical and economic effects of homocyst(e)ine lowering.

BACKGROUND: Elevated total homocyst(e)ine levels (>/=11 micromol/L) have been identified as a potential risk factor for coronary heart disease. However, the benefits expected from lowering homocyst(e)ine levels with folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation have yet to be demonstrated in clinical trials. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model to estimate the clinical benefits and economic costs of 2 homocyst(e)ine-lowering strategies: (1) "treat all"-no screening, daily supplementation with folic acid (400 microg) and vitamin B(12) (cyanocobalamin; 500 microg) for all; (2) "screen and treat"-screening, followed by daily supplementation with folic acid and vitamin B(12) for individuals with elevated homocyst(e)ine levels. Simulated cohorts of 40-year-old men and 50-year-old women in the general population were evaluated. In the base-case analysis, we assumed that lowering elevated levels would reduce excess coronary heart disease risk by 40%; however, this assumption and others were evaluated across a broad range of potential values using sensitivity analysis. Primary outcomes were discounted costs per life-year saved. RESULTS: Although the treat-all strategy was slightly more effective overall, the screen and treat strategy resulted in a much lower cost per life-year saved ($13,600 in men and $27,500 in women) when compared with no intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the treat-all strategy compared with the screen and treat strategy were more than $500,000 per life-year saved in both cohorts. Sensitivity analysis showed that cost-effectiveness ratios for the screen and treat strategy remained less than $50,000 per life-year saved under several unfavorable scenarios, such as when effective homocyst(e)ine lowering was assumed to reduce the relative risk of coronary heart disease-related death by only 11% in men or 23% in women. CONCLUSIONS: Homocyst(e)ine lowering with folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation could result in substantial clinical benefits at reasonable costs. If homocyst-(e)ine lowering is considered, a screen and treat strategy is likely to be more cost-effective than universal supplementation. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3406-3412.