Cited by 294Coronary Interventions and DiagnosticsAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Relation Between Operator and Hospital Volume and Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in the Era of the Coronary Stent

Open access
McGrath, Paul D.·2000·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Studies have found an association between physician and institution procedure volume for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) and patient outcomes, but whether implementation of coronary stents has allowed low-volume physicians and centers to achieve outcomes similar to their high-volume counterparts is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between physician and hospital PCI volumes and patient outcomes following PCIs, given the availability of coronary stents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of data from Medicare National Claims History files for 167 208 patients aged 65 to 99 years who had PCIs performed by 6534 physicians at 1003 hospitals during 1997. Of these procedures, 57.7% involved coronary stents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and 30-day mortality occurring during the index episode of care, stratified by physician and hospital PCI volume. RESULTS: Overall unadjusted rates of CABG during the index hospitalization and 30-day mortality were 1.87% and 3.30%, respectively. After adjustment for case mix, patients treated by low-volume (<30 Medicare procedures) physicians had an increased risk of CABG vs patients treated by high-volume (>60 Medicare procedures) physicians (2.25% vs 1.55%; P<.001), but there was no difference in 30-day mortality rates (3.25% vs 3.39%; P =.27). Patients treated at low-volume (<80 Medicare procedures) centers had an increased risk of 30-day mortality vs patients treated at high-volume (>160 Medicare procedures) centers (4.29% vs 3.15%; P<. 001), but there was no difference in the risk of CABG (1.83% vs 1. 83%; P =.96). In patients who received coronary stents, the CABG rate was 1.20% vs 2.78% for patients not receiving stents, and the 30-day mortality rate was 2.83% vs 3.94%. Among patients who received stents, those treated at low-volume centers had an increased risk of 30-day mortality vs those treated at high-volume centers, whereas those treated by low-volume physicians had an increased risk of CABG vs those treated by high-volume physicians. CONCLUSION: In the era of coronary stents, Medicare patients treated by high-volume physicians and at high-volume centers experience better outcomes following PCIs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.284.24.3139

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In an analysis of Medicare National Claim files of 167 208 patients undergoing coronary stent surgery, patients treated by high volume doctors and at high volume centres experienced better outcomes compared with those treated by low volume doctors at low volume centres.

    “For example, in an analysis of Medicare National Claim files of 167 208 patients undergoing coronary stent surgery, patients treated by high volume doctors and at high volume centres experienced better outcomes compared with those treated by low volume doctors at low volume centres.225”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 294

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. McGrath PD, Wennberg DE, Malenka DJ, et al, for the Northern New England Cardiovascular Dis- ease Study Group. Operator volume and outcomes in 12,998 percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:570-576.
  2. Hirshfeld JW Jr, Ellis SG, Faxon DP. Recommen- dations for the assessment and maintenance of pro- ficiency in coronary interventional procedures: state- ment of the American College of Cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:722-743.
  3. Kahn HA, Sempos CT. Statistical Methods in Epi- demiology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1989.

Authors
McGrath, P. D.
Affiliations
Maine Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
McGrath, Paul D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-12-27
Volume
284
Issue
24
Pages
3139
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2009842756
Cited by
294
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 11
FWCI
11.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary stents, operator volume, hospital volume, physician volume, coronary artery bypass grafting, 30-day mortality, Medicare beneficiaries, quality of care
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Coronary Artery Bypass, Female, Medicare, Hospitals, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Physicians, United States, Stents, Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary, Hospital Mortality, Benchmarking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review