The authors developed 8 measures of waste associated with cardiac procedures to assist hospitals in comparing their performance with peer facilities. Measure selection was based on review of the research literature, clinical guidelines, and consultation with key stakeholders. Development and validation used the data from 261 hospitals in a split-sample design. Measures were risk adjusted using Premier’s CareScience methodologies or mean peer value based on Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group assignment. High variability was found in resource utilization across facilities. Validation of the measures using item-to-total correlations (range = 0.27-0.78), Cronbach α (.88), and Spearman rank correlation (0.92) showed high reliability and discriminatory power. Because of the level of variability observed among hospitals, this study suggests that there is opportunity for facilities to design successful waste reduction programs targeting cardiac-device procedures.
EmanuelEJFuchsVR. The perfect storm of overutilization. JAMA. 2008;299:2789-2791.
2.
New England Healthcare Institute. How Many Studies Will It Take?Cambridge, MA: New England Healthcare Institute; 2008.
3.
BerwickDMHackbarthAD. Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA. 2012;307:1513-1516.
4.
KorensteinDFalkRHowellEABishopTKeyhaniS. Overuse of health care services in the United States: an understudied problem. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:171-178.
5.
National Priorities Partnership. National Priorities and Goals: Aligning Our Efforts to Transform America’s Healthcare. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; 2008.
6.
BerwickDMWaldDL. Hospital leaders’ opinions of the HCFA mortality data. JAMA. 1990;263:247-249.
7.
ChanPSPatelMRKleinLW. Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2011;306:53-61.
8.
DewlandTAPellegriniCNWangYMarcusGMKeungEVarosyPD. Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator selection is associated with increased complication rates and mortality among patients enrolled in the NCDR implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1007-1013.
9.
MatlockDDPetersonPNWangY. Variation in use of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:634-641.
10.
Al-AhmadAFreemanJV. Is less more? Dual- versus single-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:1014-1015.
11.
EpsteinAEKayGNPlumbVJ. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator prescription in the elderly. Heart Rhythm. 2009;6:1136-1143.
12.
HammillSCKremersMSStevensonLW. Review of the registry’s fourth year, incorporating lead data and pediatric ICD procedures, and use as a national performance measure. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7:1340-1345.
13.
RedbergRF. Comment on “Variation in use of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators.”Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:641-641.
14.
Association of American Medical Colleges. In the Interest of Patients: Recommendations for Physician Financial Relationships and Clinical Decision Making. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2010.
MaiselWH. Safety issues involving medical devices. JAMA. 2005;294:955-958.
20.
JungWZverevaVHajrediniBJackleS. Initial experience with magnetic resonance imaging-safe pacemakers: a review. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2011;32:213-219.
21.
NazarianSHansfordRRoguinA. A prospective evaluation of a protocol for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:415-424.
22.
US Food and Drug Administration. Understanding Barriers to Medical Device Quality. Washington, DC: US Food and Drug Administration; 2011.
23.
MaiselWH. Safety issues involving medical devices: implications of recent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator malfunctions. JAMA. 2005;294:955-958.
24.
IakovouISchmidtTBonizzoniE. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents. JAMA. 2005;293:2126-2130.
25.
ParkD-WKimY-HSongH-G. Long-term comparison of drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary revascularization: 5-year outcomes from the Asian Medical Center-Multivessel Revascularization Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:128-137.
26.
JavaidASteinbergDHBuchAN. Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2007;116(11, suppl):I200-I206.
27.
MercadoNWijnsWSerruysPW. One-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting for multisystem disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized clinical trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;130:512-519.
28.
LagerqvistBJamesSKStenestrandULindbäckJNilssonTWallentinL. Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1009-1019.
29.
KaiserCGalatiusSErneP. Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in large coronary arteries. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2310-2319.
30.
PedersenSGalatiusSMogelvangR. Long-term clinical outcome in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI and drug-eluting or bare-metal stents: insights from a high-volume single-center registry. J Invasive Cardiol. 2011;23:328-333.
31.
MaiselWH. Unanswered questions: drug-eluting stents and the risk of late thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:981-984.
32.
Di MarioCMaraSFlavioA. Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicentre randomised HEpacoat for cuLPrit or multivessel stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction (HELP AMI) study. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent. 2004;6:128-133.
33.
HannanELRaczMJWalfordG. Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2174-2183.
34.
RyanJCohenDJ. Are drug-eluting stents cost-effective?Circulation. 2006;114(16):1736-1744.
DonabedianA. The quality of medical care. Science. 1978;200:856-864.
37.
European Heart Rhythm Association, Heart Rhythm Society; ZipesDPCammAJBorggrefeM. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:e247-e346.
38.
SmithSCJrBenjaminEJBonowRO. AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation endorsed by the World Heart Federation and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2432-2446.
39.
LevineGNBatesERBlankenshipJC. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44-e122.
40.
KushnerFGHandMSmithSCJr. 2009 Focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:2205-2241.
41.
HuntSAAbrahamWTChinMH. 2009 Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:e1-e90.
42.
HirschATHaskalZJHertzerNR. ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:1239-1312.
43.
HillisLDSmithPKAndersonJL. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e123-e210.
44.
GershBJMaronBJBonowRO. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e212-e260.
45.
EpsteinAEDiMarcoJPEllenbogenKA. ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:e1-e62.
46.
BonowROCarabelloBAChatterjeeK. 2008 Focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:e1-e142.
47.
HiratzkaLFBakrisGLBeckmanJA. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:e27-e129.
48.
StemlerSE. A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=4. Accessed March 13, 2013.
PaulyMVBrailerDJKrochEA. The corporate hospital rating project: measuring hospital outcomes from a buyer’s perspective. Am J Med Qual. 1996;11:112-122.
51.
TheokaryCRenZJ. An empirical study of the relations between hospital volume, teaching status, and service quality. Prod Oper Manag. 2011;20:303-318.
52.
ZinbargRERevelleWYovelILiW. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70:123-133.
53.
CoxDR. A note on data-splitting for the evaluation of significance levels. Biometrika. 1975;62:441-444.
