Predicting Likelihood for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting After Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Finding the Best Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND: Up to half of patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) do not receive dual antiplatelet therapy before angiography "pretreatment" because of the risk of increased bleeding if coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operation is needed. Several models have been published that predict the likelihood of CABG after NSTEMI, but they have not been independently validated. The purpose of this study was to validate these models and improve the best one. METHODS: We studied patients with NSTEMI who were enrolled in the 24-center Translational Research Investigating Underlying Disparities in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients' Health Status (TRIUMPH) registry between 2005 and 2008. Previous CABG prediction models were assessed using c-statistics and calibration assessments to determine the best model. Variables from TRIUMPH likely to be associated with CABG were tested to see whether they could improve the best model's performance. RESULTS: Among 2,473 patients with NSTEMI, 11.8% underwent in-hospital CABG. C-statistics for the Modified Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction, Treat Angina With Aggrastat and Determine the Cost of Therapy With an Invasive or Conservative Strategy-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 18, Poppe, and Global Risk of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) models were 0.54, 0.61, 0.61, and 0.62, respectively. The GRACE model showed the best discrimination and calibration. From the TRIUMPH registry, preselected variables were added to the GRACE model but did not significantly improve model discrimination. A GRACE model risk score of less than 9 had high sensitivity (96%), thus making it useful for predicting patients with NSTEMI who were at low risk for requiring CABG, which included approximately 21% of patients with NSTEMI. CONCLUSIONS: This study could not improve on the GRACE model, which had the best predictive value for identifying a need for CABG after NSTEMI with a broader range of predicted risk levels and high sensitivity, especially in patients with scores lower than 9.

Variation in performance measure criteria significantly affects cardiology practice rankings: Insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry.

BACKGROUND: Million Hearts is a national initiative to prevent 1 million heart attacks and strokes over 5 years by improving cardiovascular prevention. An important tool in the success of programs like Million Hearts is public ranking on the quality of practices, yet different measures may provide different rankings, so the true quality of practices is difficult to discern. We evaluated the quality of ambulatory cardiology care using performance measure metrics. METHODS: We compared rankings of practices participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry using measures from (1) the physician quality reporting system and (2) the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. We compared achievement rates for measures between the 2 frameworks and determined correlations in rankings using Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: From January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012, there were 1,711,326 patients enrolled from 111 US practices. Among eligible patients, the physician quality reporting system and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement measures were achieved in 76.1% versus 77.4% for antiplatelet prescription (P < .001), 68.3% versus 90.8% for blood pressure control (P < .001), 26.9% versus 43.4% for cholesterol control (P < .001), and 37.4% versus 40.6% for smoking cessation (P = .383). Practice rankings were strongly correlated for antiplatelet prescription (correlation coefficient 0.98) and cholesterol control (0.92) but poorly correlated for blood pressure control (0.39) and smoking cessation (0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of preventive care and individual practice rankings vary significantly depending on how measures are defined. Publicly reported measures need to be validly associated with outcomes to avoid incorrectly evaluating practice performance and failing to achieve public health goals.

Age at diagnosis predicts deterioration in glycaemic control among children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Poor glycemic control early in the course of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) increases the risk for microvascular complications. However, predictors of deteriorating control after diagnosis have not been described, making it difficult to identify high-risk patients and proactively provide aggressive interventions. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether diagnostic age, gender, and race were associated with deteriorating glycemic control during the first 5 years after diagnosis. PARTICIPANTS: 2218 pediatric patients with T1DM. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of pediatric patients with T1DM from the Midwest USA, 1993-2009, evaluating within-patient glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) trajectories constructed from all available HbA1c values within 5 years of diagnosis. RESULTS: 52.6% of patients were male; 86.1% were non-Hispanic Caucasian. The mean diagnostic age was 9.0±4.1 years. The mean number of HbA1c values/year/participant was 2.4±0.9. HbA1c trajectories differed markedly across age groups, with older patients experiencing greater deterioration than their younger counterparts (p<0.001). HbA1c trajectories, stratified by age, varied markedly by race (p for race×diagnostic age <0.001). Non-Hispanic African-American patients experienced higher initial HbA1c (8.7% vs 7.6% (71.6 vs 59.6 mmol/mol); p<0.001), and greater deterioration in HbA1c than non-Hispanic Caucasian patients across diagnostic ages (rise of 2.04% vs 0.99% per year (22.3 vs 10.8 mmol/mol/year); p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Older diagnostic age and black race are major risk factors for deterioration in glycemic control early in the course of T1DM. These findings can inform efforts to explore the reasons behind these differences and develop preventive interventions for high-risk patients.

Patient-reported outcomes after single-incision versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) is a newer approach that may be a safe alternative to traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) based on retrospective and small prospective studies. As the demand for single-incision surgery may be driven by patient perceptions of benefits, we designed a prospective randomized study using patient-reported outcomes as our end points. METHODS: Patients deemed candidates for either SILC or TLC were offered enrollment in the study. After induction of anesthesia, patients were randomized to SILC or TLC. Preoperative characteristics and operative data were recorded, including length of stay (LOS). Pain scores in recovery and for 48 h and satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 and 4 weeks were reported by patients. We used the gastrointestinal quality of life index (GIQLI) survey preoperatively and at 2 and 4 weeks postoperatively to assess recovery. Procedural and total hospital costs per case were abstracted from hospital billing systems. RESULTS: Mean age of the study group was 44.1 years (±14.8), 87% were Caucasian, and 77% were female, with no difference between groups. Operative times were longer for SILC (median = 57 vs. 47 min, p = 0.008), but mean LOS was similar (6.8 ± 4.2 h SILC vs. 6.2 ± 4.8 h TLC, p = 0.59). Operating room cost and encounter cost were similar. GIQLI scores were not significantly different preoperatively or at 2 or 4 weeks postoperatively. Patients reported higher satisfaction with wound appearance at 2 weeks with SILC. There were no differences in pain scores in recovery or in the first 48 h, although SILC patients required significantly more narcotic in recovery (19 mg morphine equivalent vs. 11.5, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: SILC is a longer operation but can be done at the same cost as TLC. Recovery and pain scores are not significantly different. There may be an improvement in patient satisfaction with wound appearance. Both procedures are valid approaches to cholecystectomy.