Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2010
The relation between hospital procedure volume and complications of cardioverter-defibrillator implantation from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Freeman James V, Wang Yongfei, Curtis Jeptha P, Heidenreich Paul A, Hlatky Mark A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine the relationship between hospital implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation volume and procedural complications in a contemporary, representative population.
BACKGROUND: Hospitals that perform higher volumes of procedures generally have better clinical outcomes.
METHODS: We examined initial ICD implantations between January 2006 and December 2008 at hospitals participating in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) ICD Registry and evaluated the relationship between hospital annual implant volume and in-hospital adverse outcomes.
RESULTS: The rate of adverse events declined progressively with increasing procedure volume (p trend < 0.0001). This relationship remained significant (p trend < 0.0001) after adjustment for patient clinical characteristics, operator characteristics, and hospital characteristics. The volume-outcome relationship was evident for all ICD subtypes, including single-chamber (p trend = 0.004), dual-chamber (p trend < 0.0001), and biventricular ICDs (p trend = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have an ICD implanted at a high-volume hospital are less likely to have an adverse event associated with the procedure than patients who have an ICD implanted at a low-volume hospital.
BACKGROUND: Hospitals that perform higher volumes of procedures generally have better clinical outcomes.
METHODS: We examined initial ICD implantations between January 2006 and December 2008 at hospitals participating in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) ICD Registry and evaluated the relationship between hospital annual implant volume and in-hospital adverse outcomes.
RESULTS: The rate of adverse events declined progressively with increasing procedure volume (p trend < 0.0001). This relationship remained significant (p trend < 0.0001) after adjustment for patient clinical characteristics, operator characteristics, and hospital characteristics. The volume-outcome relationship was evident for all ICD subtypes, including single-chamber (p trend = 0.004), dual-chamber (p trend < 0.0001), and biventricular ICDs (p trend = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have an ICD implanted at a high-volume hospital are less likely to have an adverse event associated with the procedure than patients who have an ICD implanted at a low-volume hospital.