For Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in the Clinical Outcomes Assessment ProgramABSTRACT: Published mortality models for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program (COAP) model, have not considered the effect of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary objective of this study was to determine if the inclusion of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest altered the COAP mortality model for PCI. The COAP PCI database contains extensive demographic, clinical, procedural and outcome information, including out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, which was added to the data collection form in 2006. This study included 15,586 consecutive PCIs performed in 31 Washington State hospitals in 2006. Using development and test sets, the existing COAP PCI logistic regression mortality model was examined to assess the effect of out-of-hospital arrest on in-hospital mortality. Overall, 2% of individuals undergoing PCI had cardiac arrest prior to hospital arrival. Among 8 hospitals with PCI volumes 120 cases per year did. In-hospital mortality was 19% in the arrest group and was 1.0% in remaining procedures (p Methods Patient population. This study included 15,586 PCIs performed in 31 Washington State hospitals between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006. With the exception of 1 military hospital, all consecutive procedures performed in the state during 2006 were captured. Study variables. The COAP PCI database contains extensive information which is collected by skilled medical records abstractors. Data are entered at the local hospital on case report forms and are electronically transmitted to a central contractor that in turn carefully checks the completeness and accuracy of data before constructing analytic files. This process of chart abstraction, data transmission and management has been in place since 1999.9,10 Variables in the published COAP PCI mortality model are cardiogenic shock, age, nonelective procedure (including urgent and emergent categories), baseline creatinine > 2.0 mg/dL, ejection fraction, acute myocardial infarction 0.05 were removed from the model. The model was developed in a set of 10,149 cases that had complete information received as of January 2007 and was tested in 5366 cases that had complete information received as of April 2007. The first data set essentially included the first three quarters of 2006, and the second included the last quarter of 2006. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed with the c-statistic and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. Standard errors of the regression coefficients were corrected for clustering of patients within hospitals. There were relatively few cases with missing data, as most predictors were absent in fewer than 10 cases; exceptions to this were elevated creatinine missing in 4% of cases and ejection fraction, which was unknown in 23% of cases. Hospital mortality in those with and without creatinine values was similar (1.4% versus 1.6%; p = 0.66), although mortality was higher in the missing ejection fraction group as opposed to ejection fraction > 30% (2.6% versus 0.7%; p 30%. Results Overall, 2% of individuals undergoing PCI had cardiac arrest prior to hospital arrival. Patients with cardiac arrest were younger and were more likely to be men than their counterparts without cardiac arrest (Table 1). More than 85% of the group with cardiac arrest had a previous myocardial infarction, including those that occurred within 24 hours of admission. In addition, the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and congestive heart failure was higher, but the group without cardiac arrest had more hypertension and previous cardiac revascularization. As Table 2 shows, procedural characteristics were significantly different in the two groups. The vast majority of cardiac arrest patients had myocardial infarction within 24 hours of hospital arrival, and > 30% had cardiogenic shock as well. Consistent with an increased prevalence of congestive heart failure, a higher proportion of patients with cardiac arrest had ejection fractions 120 procedures per year had such cardiac arrest volumes (p Discussion While the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in patients undergoing PCI in Washington State was 2%, centers with low PCI volumes had higher proportions with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. It is possible that risk-adjusted performance for these hospitals could be falsely reported by not considering out-of-hospital cardiac arrest as a covariate in the multivariate logistic regression model. Because of this possibility, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was added to the existing COAP PCI mortality model, which has been described and tested in an independent data set.10,15 Compared to the old model with a c-statistic of 0.87, the new PCI mortality model had fewer variables and similar discrimination, as indicated by the c-statistic of 0.89. There are several risk-adjustment models for in-hospital PCI mortality including those from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR)3,4 and the Mayo Clinic.7,8 Although these models have many predictor variables in common, the COAP model is the only one of these to include out-of-hospital cardiac arrest as a predictor. Both the ACC-NCDR and the Mayo Clinic models had high levels of discrimination (c-statistic = 0.89 for both models) similar to that observed in both the old and new COAP models. It is important to recognize that the change in the COAP model was made not to improve overall model performance, but to more accurately assess hospital performance for low-volume centers who had a higher proportion of patients with cardiac arrest. Relatively little is known about out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in patients undergoing PCI.11–14 Most studies are either descriptive natural history reports or compare modes of reperfusion therapies for these patients. There is a consistent finding of excess mortality for patients undergoing PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest followed by successful resuscitation. These studies have identified mortality rates ranging from 21–71%. In one study, the hospital mortality rate for patients with successful out-of-hospital resuscitation was 27.5% versus 4.9% for no cardiac arrest.12 In another sample of patients who were unconscious at the time of the PCI, there was a 49–71% mortality rate depending on the level of cerebral performance compared to no deaths in those conscious at the time of the procedure.14 This study is bolstered by the fact that COAP is in its ninth year of collecting high-quality data regarding all cardiac revascularization procedures performed in 31 Washington State hospitals. Study limitations. One shortcoming of the study was the limited information about the circumstances and field treatment of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. It is possible that the occurrence of cardiac arrest could have been overestimated. However, COAP has recently implemented an audit process in which selected charts from all hospitals are reviewed annually. So far, there has been no evidence that the incidence of cardiac arrest has been inflated. Another limitation was the relatively brief time between hospital admission and discharge. A 30-day mortality window would be optimal, but currently in COAP, it is not possible to easily follow patients once they leave the hospital. In addition, patients with cardiac arrest have a longer length of stay, thus expanding the window for the occurrence of adverse in-hospital events including death. Also, nearly 25% were missing ejection fraction data, which could result in inaccurate estimates of risk. Ejection fraction was removed from the model and regression coefficients for the remaining variables were recalculated. When this model was applied to the test set, the c-statistic was 0.87, indicating that model performance did not change when ejection fraction was removed from the model. This is not to suggest, however, that ejection fraction should be removed from the model, as it is a key predictor of mortality. Finally there could be unmeasured confounders for which we could not adjust. Conclusion As the practice of PCI is continually evolving, it is important that organizations charged with performance reporting have the capacity to add new variables to data collection forms, as well as to modify statistical models used to assess performance. The current study demonstrates the need for this adaptability, as it has shown that out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a key factor in assessing risk-adjusted hospital mortality, particularly for low-volume centers with a relatively high number of cardiac arrest cases. Cardiac arrest as a predictor of mortality may become more important as the use of both field and hospital cooling could lead to increased numbers of cardiac arrest patients undergoing PCI.16
1. Hannan EL, Arani DT, Johnson LW, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in New York State: Risk factors and outcomes. JAMA 1992;268:3092‚Äì3097.
2. Wu C, Hannan EL, Walford G, et al. A risk score to predict in-hospital mortality for percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:654‚Äì660.
3. Shaw RE, Anderson VH, Brindis RG, et al. Development of risk adjustment mortality model using the American College of Cardiology national cardiovascular registry (ACC-NCDR) experience: 1998‚Äì2000. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1104‚Äì1112.
4. Shaw RE, Anderson VH, Brindis RG, et al. Updated risk adjustment mortality model using the complete 1.1 dataset from the American College of Cardiology national cardiovascular registry (ACC-NCDR). J Invasive Cardiol 2003;15:578‚Äì580.
5. Anderson HV, Shaw RE, Brindis RG, et al. Risk-adjusted mortality analysis of percutaneous coronary interventions by American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommendations. Am J Cardiol 2007;99:189-‚Äì196.
6. O‚ÄôConnor GT, Malenka DT, Quinton H, et al. Multivariate prediction of in-hospital morality after percutaneous interventions in 1994-1996. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34:681‚Äì691.
7. Singh M, Lennon RJ, Holmes DR, et al. Correlates of procedural complications and a simple integer risk score for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:387‚Äì393.
8. Singh M, Rihal CS, Lennon RJ, et al. Bedside estimation of risk from percutaneous coronary intervention: The new Mayo Clinic risk scores. Mayo Clin Proc 2007;82:701‚Äì708.
9. Goss JR, Maynard C, Aldea GS, et al. Effects of a statewide physician-led quality improvement program on the quality of cardiac care. Am Heart J 2006;151:1040‚Äì1049.
10. Maynard C, Goss JR, Malenka DJ, et al. Adjusting for patient differences in predicting hospital mortality for percutaneous coronary interventions in the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program. Am Heart J 2003;145:658‚Äì664.
11. Bulut S, Aengevaeren WRM, Luijten HJE, et al. Successful out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: What is the optimal in-hospital treatment strategy? Resuscitation 2000;47:155‚Äì161.
12. Bendz B, Eritsland J, Nakstad AR, et al. Long-term prognosis after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Resuscitation 2004;63:49‚Äì53.
13. Quintero-Moran B, Moreno R, Villarreal S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiac arrest secondary to ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. Influence of immediate paramedical/medical assistance on clinical outcome. J Invasive Cardiol 2006;18:269‚Äì272.
14. Gorjup V, Radsel P, Kocjancic ST, et al. Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction after successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2007;72:379‚Äì385.
15. Wu YX, Jin R, Grunkemeier GL. Validating the clinical outcomes assessment program risk model for percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J 2006;151:1276‚Äì1280.
16. Kim F, Olsufka M, Longstreth WT, et al. Pilot randomized clinical trial of prehospital induction of mild hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with a rapid infusion of 4¬∞C normal saline. Circulation 2007;115:3064‚Äì3070.