Association of Physician Certification in Interventional Cardiology With In-Hospital Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Circulation

From Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (P.N.F.); Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT (K.E.M., J.J.B., J.P.C.); Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT (J.H., J.P.C.); Health Research & Educational Trust, Chicago, IL (J.H.); Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Aurora (J.C.M.); University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York (H.H.T.); University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Ann Arbor (B.K.N.); American Board of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, PA (R.S.L., B.J.H.); Hess Consulting, St. Nicolas, QC, Canada (B.J.H.); and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, IL (E.S.H.).

Published: November 2015

Background: The value of American Board of Internal Medicine certification has been questioned. We evaluated the Association of Interventional Cardiology certification with in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 2010.

Methods And Results: We identified physicians who performed ≥10 PCIs in 2010 in the CathPCI Registry and determined interventional cardiology (ICARD) certification status using American Board of Internal Medicine data. We compared in-hospital outcomes of patients treated by certified and noncertified physicians using hierarchical multivariable models adjusted for differences in patient characteristics and PCI volume. Primary end points were all-cause in-hospital mortality and bleeding complications. Secondary end points included emergency coronary artery bypass grafting, vascular complications, and a composite of any adverse outcome. With 510,708 PCI procedures performed by 5175 physicians, case mix and unadjusted outcomes were similar among certified and noncertified physicians. The adjusted risks of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.19) and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.56) were higher in the non-ICARD-certified group, but the risks of bleeding and vascular complications and the composite end point were not statistically significantly different between groups.

Conclusions: We did not observe a consistent association between ICARD certification and the outcomes of PCI procedures. Although there was a significantly higher risk of mortality and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting in patients treated by non-ICARD-certified physicians, the risks of vascular complications and bleeding were similar. Our findings suggest that ICARD certification status alone is not a strong predictor of patient outcomes and indicate a need to enhance the value of subspecialty certification.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4641797PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017523DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

interventional cardiology
12
in-hospital outcomes
12
icard certification
12
emergency coronary
12
coronary artery
12
artery bypass
12
bypass grafting
12
vascular complications
12
percutaneous coronary
8
coronary intervention
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!