Relationship Between Procedure Volumes and Outcomes in Catheter-Based Coronary Artery Interventions

Chapter

Abstract

In the field of interventional cardiology, institutional and operator volumes are often used as quality metrics across many national health care systems. The relationship between volumes and better outcomes appears intuitive as it is logical to think that doing a procedure more frequently is likely to enhance operator skills and, more importantly, the ability to recognize and deal with complications. National bodies recommend minimum procedural activity for practicing interventionists to maintain competency. In this chapter we review the various volume thresholds set by the international recommending bodies and, more importantly, the evidence behind such recommendations.

References

  1. 1.
    Hannan EL, Racz M, Ryan TJ, McCallister BD, Johnson LW, Arani DT, et al. Coronary angioplasty volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and cardiologists. JAMA. 1997;277(11):892–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McGrath PD, Wennberg DE, Dickens JD Jr, Siewers AE, Lucas FL, Malenka DJ, et al. Relation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stent. JAMA. 2000;284(24):3139–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strom JB, Wimmer NJ, Wasfy JH, Kennedy K, Yeh RW. Association between operator procedure volume and patient outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(4):560–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Post PN, Kuijpers M, Ebels T, Zijlstra F. The relation between volume and outcome of coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(16):1985–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. EuroIntervention. 2015;10(9):1024–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banning AP, Baumbach A, Blackman D, Curzen N, Devadathan S, Fraser D, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in the UK: recommendations for good practice 2015. Heart. 2015;101(Suppl 3):1–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harold JG, Bass TA, Bashore TM, Brindis RG, Brush JE Jr, Burke JA, et al. ACCF/AHA/SCAI 2013 update of the clinical competence statement on coronary artery interventional procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training (Writing Committee to Revise the 2007 Clinical Competence Statement on Cardiac Interventional Procedures). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(4):357–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    King SB, Aversano T, Ballard WL, Beekman RH, Cowley MJ, Ellis SG, et al. ACCF/AHA/SCAI 2007 update of the clinical competence statement on cardiac interventional procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training (Writing Committee to Update the 1998 Clinical Competence Statement on Recommendations for the Assessment and Maintenance of Proficiency in Coronary Interventional Procedures). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50(1):82–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Howard DH, Shen YC. Trends in PCI volume after negative results from the COURAGE trial. Health Serv Res. 2014;49(1):153–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med. 1979;301(25):1364–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gooiker GA, van Gijn W, Wouters MW, Post PN, van de Velde CJ, Tollenaar RA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg. 2011;98(4):485–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin HC, Xirasagar S, Tsao NW, Hwang YT, Kuo NW, Lee HC. Volume–outcome relationships in coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients: 5-year major cardiovascular event outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135(4):923–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Varadarajulu S, Kilgore ML, Wilcox CM, Eloubeidi MA. Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay, and technical outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64(3):338–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hannan EL, Wu C, Ryan TJ, Bennett E, Culliford AT, Gold JP, et al. Do hospitals and surgeons with higher coronary artery bypass graft surgery volumes still have lower risk-adjusted mortality rates? Circulation. 2003;108(7):795–801.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh M, Rihal CS, Gersh BJ, Lennon RJ, Prasad A, Sorajja P, et al. Twenty-five-year trends in in-hospital and long-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention: a single-institution experience. Circulation. 2007;115(22):2835–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iqbal J, Gunn J, Serruys PW. Coronary stents: historical development, current status and future directions. Br Med Bull. 2013;106:193–211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brindis RG, Weintraub WS, Dudley RA. Volume as a surrogate for percutaneous coronary intervention quality: is this the right measuring stick? Am Heart J. 2003;146(6):932–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rashid M, Sperrin M, Ludman PF, O’Neill D, Nicholas O, de Belder MA, et al. Impact of operator volume for percutaneous coronary intervention on clinical outcomes: what do the numbers say? Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2016;2(1):16–22. Oxford University Press.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Badheka AO, Patel NJ, Grover P, Singh V, Patel N, Arora S, et al. Impact of annual operator and institutional volume on percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes: a 5-year United States experience (2005–2009). Circulation. 2014;130(16):1392–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moscucci M, Share D, Smith D, O’Donnell MJ, Riba A, McNamara R, et al. Relationship between operator volume and adverse outcome in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention practice: an analysis of a quality-controlled multicenter percutaneous coronary intervention clinical database. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(4):625–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cantor WJ, Hall R, Tu JV. Do operator volumes relate to clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in the Canadian health care system? Am Heart J. 2006;151(4):902–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, King SB, Holmes DR, Jr AJA, et al. Volume-outcome relationships for percutaneous coronary interventions in the stent era. Circulation. 2005;112(8):1171–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shahian DM, Normand SL. The volume–outcome relationship: from Luft to Leapfrog. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75(3):1048–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hartz AJ, Kuhn EM, Kayser KL, Pryor DP, Green R, Rimm AA. Assessing providers of coronary revascularization: a method for peer review organizations. Am J Public Health. 1992;82(12):1631–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Epstein AJ, Rathore SS, Volpp KG, Krumholz HM. Hospital percutaneous coronary intervention volume and patient mortality, 1998 to 2000: does the evidence support current procedure volume minimums? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43(10):1755–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jollis JG, Peterson ED, Nelson CL, Stafford JA, DeLong ER, Muhlbaier LH, et al. Relationship between physician and hospital coronary angioplasty volume and outcome in elderly patients. Circulation. 1997;95(11):2485–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jollis JG, Peterson ED, DeLong ER, Mark DB, Collins SR, Muhlbaier LH, et al. The relation between the volume of coronary angioplasty procedures at hospitals treating Medicare beneficiaries and short-term mortality. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(24):1625–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ho V. Evolution of the volume–outcome relation for hospitals performing coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 2000;101(15):1806–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carey JS, Danielsen B, Gold JP, Rossiter SJ. Procedure rates and outcomes of coronary revascularization procedures in California and New York. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129(6):1276–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Burton KR, Slack R, Oldroyd KG, Pell AC, Flapan AD, Starkey IR, et al. Hospital volume of throughput and periprocedural and medium-term adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention: retrospective cohort study of all 17,417 procedures undertaken in Scotland, 1997–2003. Heart. 2006;92(11):1667–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dauerman HL. Time, space and leaps of faith. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(5):491–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schoos MM, Pedersen F, Holmvang L, Engstrom T, Saunamaki K, Helqvist S, et al. Optimal catchment area and primary PCI centre volume revisited: a single-centre experience in transition from high-volume centre to “mega centre” for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(5):503–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vakili BA, Kaplan R, Brown DL. Volume–outcome relation for physicians and hospitals performing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in New York State. Circulation. 2001;104(18):2171–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Srinivas VS, Hailpern SM, Koss E, Monrad ES, Alderman MH. Effect of physician volume on the relationship between hospital volume and mortality during primary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(7):574–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Spaulding C, Morice MC, Lancelin B, El Haddad S, Lepage E, Bataille S, et al. Is the volume–outcome relation still an issue in the era of PCI with systematic stenting? Results of the Greater Paris Area PCI Registry. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(9):1054–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Politi A, Galli M, Zerboni S, Michi R, De Marco F, Llambro M, et al. Operator volume and outcomes of primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in a single high-volume centre. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2006;7(10):761–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Canto JG, Every NR, Magid DJ, Rogers WJ, Malmgren JA, Frederick PD, et al. The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(21):1573–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kumbhani DJ, Cannon CP, Fonarow GC, Liang L, Askari AT, Peacock WF, et al. Association of hospital primary angioplasty volume in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with quality and outcomes. JAMA. 2009;302(20):2207–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kuwabara H, Fushimi K, Matsuda S. Relationship between hospital volume and outcomes following primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circ J. 2011;75(5):1107–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Magid DJ, Calonge BN, Rumsfeld JS, Canto JG, Frederick PD, Every NR, et al. Relation between hospital primary angioplasty volume and mortality for patients with acute MI treated with primary angioplasty vs thrombolytic therapy. JAMA. 2000;284(24):3131–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu B, Redfors B, Yang Y, Qiao S, Wu Y, Chen J, et al. Impact of operator experience and volume on outcomes after left main coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(20):2086–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mehran R, Claessen BE, Godino C, Dangas GD, Obunai K, Kanwal S, et al. Long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(9):952–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kim BK, Shin S, Shin DH, Hong MK, Gwon HC, Kim HS, et al. Clinical outcome of successful percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion: results from the multicenter Korean Chronic Total Occlusion (K-CTO) Registry. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014;26(6):255–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brilakis ES, Banerjee S, Karmpaliotis D, Lombardi WL, Tsai TT, Shunk KA, et al. Procedural outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(2):245–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jolly SS, Cairns J, Yusuf S, Niemela K, Steg PG, Worthley M, et al. Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(10):954–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gutierrez A, Tsai TT, Stanislawski MA, Vidovich M, Bryson CL, Bhatt DL, et al. Adoption of transradial percutaneous coronary intervention and outcomes according to center radial volume in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system: insights from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) Program. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(4):336–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hess CN, Peterson ED, Neely ML, Dai D, Hillegass WB, Krucoff MW, et al. The learning curve for transradial percutaneous coronary intervention among operators in the United States: a study from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation. 2014;129(22):2277–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ball WT, Sharieff W, Jolly SS, Hong T, Kutryk MJ, Graham JJ, et al. Characterization of operator learning curve for transradial coronary interventions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(4):336–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hulme W, Sperrin M, Rushton H, Ludman PF, De Belder M, Curzen N, et al. Is there a relationship of operator and center volume with access site-related outcomes? An analysis from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(5):e003333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zahn R, Gottwik M, Hochadel M, Senges J, Zeymer U, Vogt A, et al. Volume-outcome relation for contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in daily clinical practice: is it limited to high-risk patients? Results from the Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausarzte (ALKK). Heart. 2008;94(3):329–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele UniversityStoke-on-TrentUK

Personalised recommendations