Cited by 79Clinical practice guidelines implementationCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics

Secondary Prevention After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Findings of a National Randomized Controlled Trial and Sustained Society-Led Incorporation Into Practice

Open access
Williams, Judson B., DeLong, Elizabeth R., Peterson, Eric D., Dokholyan, Rachel S., Ou, Fang-Shu, Ferguson, T. Bruce·2011·Circulation

Abstract

Background—: Despite evidence supporting the use of aspirin, β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and lipid-lowering therapies in eligible patients, adoption of these secondary prevention measures after coronary artery bypass grafting has been inconsistent. We sought to rigorously test on a national scale whether low-intensity continuous quality improvement interventions can be used to speed secondary prevention adherence after coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods and Results—: A total of 458 hospitals participating in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database and treating 361 328 patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting were randomized to either a control or an intervention group. The intervention group received continuous quality improvement materials designed to influence the prescription of the secondary prevention medications at discharge. The primary outcome measure was discharge prescription rates of the targeted secondary prevention medications at intervention versus control sites, assessed by measuring preintervention and postintervention site differences. Prerandomization treatment patterns and baseline data were similar in the control (n=234) and treatment (n=224) groups. Individual medication use and composite adherence increased over 24 months in both groups, with a markedly more rapid rate of adherence uptake among the intervention hospitals and a statistically significant therapy hazard ratio in the intervention versus control group for all 4 secondary prevention medications. Conclusions—: Provider-led, low-intensity continuous quality improvement efforts can improve the adoption of care processes into national practice within the context of a medical specialty society infrastructure. The findings of the present trial have led to the incorporation of study outcome metrics into a medical society rating system for ongoing quality improvement.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.110.981068

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • A low-intensity quality-improvement programme in a randomized national study of 458 hospitals after bypass surgery significantly increased optimal secondary prevention, with better adherence in all patient subgroups, particularly women and the elderly, and almost eliminated previous treatment gaps.

    “A significant increase was observed in the rate of optimal secondary prevention, with better adherence to guidelines in all patient subgroups, particularly women and the elderly; previously existing treatment gaps were almost eliminated, and improvements were seen in the use of lipid-lowering therapy, ACE inhibitor treatment, and tobaccocessation counselling.”
  • Over 2 years there was a continuous increase in guideline adherence by physicians at patient discharge.

    “There appears to be a learning curve: over the course of 2 years there was a continuous increase in guideline adherence by the physicians at discharge of the patients.560”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, J. B., DeLong, E. R., Peterson, E. D., Dokholyan, R. S., Ou, F.-S., & Ferguson, T. B.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
Circulation
Published
2011-01
Volume
123
Issue
1
Pages
39-45
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2019040299
Cited by
79
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 21
FWCI
11.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5u01hl088953-05, 5t32hl069749-20)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32-HL069749, HL088953, U01-HL088953)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Keywords
secondary prevention, coronary artery bypass grafting, continuous quality improvement, medication adherence, aspirin, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, lipid-lowering therapy, hospital quality improvement
MeSH terms
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Aged, Coronary Artery Bypass, Aspirin, Coronary Artery Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Registries, Societies, Medical, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Secondary Prevention

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