Atherosclerosis secondary prevention performance measures after coronary bypass graft surgery compared with percutaneous catheter intervention and nonintervention patients in the Get With the Guidelines database
Abstract
Background— The American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease program facilitates patient and physician compliance with proven atherosclerosis risk reduction strategies with collaborative learning sessions, teaching materials, predischarge online check lists, and web-based performance measure feedback for continuous quality improvement. Patients having coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) may be subject to different care processes, nursing unit pathways, and personnel than patients having percutaneous catheter intervention or neither intervention, which may affect compliance. Methods and Results— The Get With the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease database was queried to determine whether compliance with secondary prevention performance measures for CABG patients was different from that for nonsurgical patients. A total of 119 106 patients were treated with CABG (14 118), percutaneous catheter intervention (58 702), or neither intervention (46 286). Compliance with medication prescriptions, including aspirin, β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and lipid-lowering drugs, and smoking cessation counseling for eligible patients was analyzed. Medically appropriate exclusions and contraindications were included in the analysis. After adjusting for 14 clinical variables, CABG patients were less likely to receive most secondary prevention measures relative to percutaneous catheter intervention patients. In contrast, CABG patients were more likely to receive aspirin, β-blocker, and smoking cessation counseling than neither intervention patients. Composite adherence and defect-free rates were highest for percutaneous catheter intervention patients and lowest for neither intervention patients after adjustment. Conclusions— There are significant differences in compliance at hospital discharge with secondary prevention performance measures for CABG patients compared with nonsurgical patients. Process of care differences may explain these differences and should be examined further because significant opportunities for improved compliance are evident. CABG patients in particular represent a group for whom secondary prevention has proven benefits, and they may benefit from future quality improvement interventions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Defect-free compliance was highest for PCI patients (71.5%), followed by CABG patients (65.1%), then no-intervention patients (62.1%).
“Defect-free (100%) compliance was highest for PCI patients (71.5%), followed by CABG patients (65.1%), then no-intervention patients (62.1%).”
From European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012) (2012) · cites this paper as [556]
Multivariable analysis adjusting for 14 clinical variables confirmed that compliance with all performance measures was statistically significantly higher for PCI patients than for CABG patients and was lowest for non-intervention patients.
“Multivariable analysis adjusting for 14 clinical variables confirmed that compliance with all performance measures was statistically significantly higher for PCI patients than for CABG patients and was lowest for non-intervention patients.556”
From European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012) (2012) · cites this paper as [556]
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 20 · Cited by 75
- Authors
- Hiratzka, L. F., Eagle, K. A., Liang, L., Fonarow, G. C., LaBresh, K. A., & Peterson, E. D.
- Affiliations
- Good Samaritan Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hiratzka, Loren F.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2007-09-11
- Volume
- 116
- Issue
- 11_supplement
- Pages
- I207-12
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2142989283
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 5.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Circulation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
- Keywords
- secondary prevention, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, medication adherence, aspirin, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, lipid-lowering drugs, smoking cessation counseling, quality of care, Get With The Guidelines, coronary artery disease, process of care
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Coronary Artery Bypass, Coronary Artery Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary, Databases, Factual, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic
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