JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2024
National Variability in Pacemaker Implantation Rate Following TAVR: Insights From the STS/ACC TVT Registry.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vora Amit N, Gada Hemal, Manandhar Pratik, Kosinski Andrezej, Kirtane Ajay, Nazif Tamim, Reardon Michael, Kodali Susheel, Cohen David J, Thourani Vinod, Sherwood Matthew, Julien Howard, Vemulapalli Sreekanth
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a common complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), hospital variation and change in PPM implantation rates are ill defined.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine hospital-level variation and temporal trends in the rate of PPM implantation following TAVR.
METHODS: Using the American College of Cardiology/Society of Thoracic Surgeons TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry, temporal changes in variation of in-hospital and 30-day PPM implantation were determined among 184,452 TAVR procedures across 653 sites performed from 2016 to 2020. The variation in PPM implantation adjusted for valve type by annualized TAVR volume was determined, and characteristics of sites below, within, and above the 95% boundary were identified. A series of stepwise multivariable hierarchical models were then fit, and the median OR was used to measure variation in pacemaker rates among sites.
RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, the overall rate of PPM implantation was 11.3%, with wide variation across sites (range: 0%-36.4%); rates trended lower over time. Adjusted for annualized volume, there were 34 sites with PPM implantation rates above the 95th percentile CI and 28 with rates below, with wide variation among the remaining sites. After adjusting for patient-level covariates, there was variation among sites in the probability of PPM implantation (median OR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.35-1.43, P < 0.001); although some of the variation was explained by the addition of valve type, residual variation in PPM implantation rates persisted in additional models incorporating site-level covariates (annualized volume, region, teaching status, hospital beds, etc).
CONCLUSIONS: Although PPM implantation rates have decreased over time, substantial site-level variation remains even after accounting for observed patient characteristics and site-level factors. As there are numerous outlier sites both above and below the 95% confidence limit, dissemination of best practices from high-performing sites to low-performing sites and guideline-based education may be important quality improvement initiatives to reduce rates of this common complication.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine hospital-level variation and temporal trends in the rate of PPM implantation following TAVR.
METHODS: Using the American College of Cardiology/Society of Thoracic Surgeons TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry, temporal changes in variation of in-hospital and 30-day PPM implantation were determined among 184,452 TAVR procedures across 653 sites performed from 2016 to 2020. The variation in PPM implantation adjusted for valve type by annualized TAVR volume was determined, and characteristics of sites below, within, and above the 95% boundary were identified. A series of stepwise multivariable hierarchical models were then fit, and the median OR was used to measure variation in pacemaker rates among sites.
RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, the overall rate of PPM implantation was 11.3%, with wide variation across sites (range: 0%-36.4%); rates trended lower over time. Adjusted for annualized volume, there were 34 sites with PPM implantation rates above the 95th percentile CI and 28 with rates below, with wide variation among the remaining sites. After adjusting for patient-level covariates, there was variation among sites in the probability of PPM implantation (median OR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.35-1.43, P < 0.001); although some of the variation was explained by the addition of valve type, residual variation in PPM implantation rates persisted in additional models incorporating site-level covariates (annualized volume, region, teaching status, hospital beds, etc).
CONCLUSIONS: Although PPM implantation rates have decreased over time, substantial site-level variation remains even after accounting for observed patient characteristics and site-level factors. As there are numerous outlier sites both above and below the 95% confidence limit, dissemination of best practices from high-performing sites to low-performing sites and guideline-based education may be important quality improvement initiatives to reduce rates of this common complication.