This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kuntz, R. E. Articles by Normand, S.-L. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kuntz, R. E. Articles by Normand, S.-L. T. Related Collections Health policy and outcome research Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents Related Article

(Circulation. 2005;112:1088-1091.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Measuring Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Quality by Simple Case Volume

Richard E. Kuntz, MD, MSc; Sharon-Lise T. Normand, PhD

From the Divisions of Cardiology and Clinical Biometrics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School (R.E.K.), and the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, and the Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health (S.T.N.), Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to Dr Richard E. Kuntz, Division of Clinical Biometrics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02155. E-mail rkuntz@partners.org

Key Words: Editorials • stents • angioplasty • catheterization • coronary disease

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
Monitoring health care and developing metrics to gauge optimum systems from suboptimum ones is a multidimensional effort that spans the spectrum of health services research and administration. The quality assessment tools for operative procedures range from policies requiring measurement of general compliance within medical society guidelines, in terms of medical indications and procedural techniques, to local hospital peer review and medical executive committee oversight focused on case review. Although these quality measures are certainly labor intensive and require the highest level of objective reasoning and judgment, simpler metrics have been proposed that offer better ease of use and objectivity. Probably the most practical of the simpler methods for operative procedures is the measurement of periodic operative count, usually by physician and hospital, and a comparison of this count to a specified number or threshold felt to signify the highest quality. Inherent in this comparison of volume and quality is the operation-specific assessment of volume and outcomes to support the notion of a positive or negative (ie, not flat) relationship. In virtually all analyses in which a significant relationship has been demonstrated, an inverse relationship between volume and adverse outcomes was seen.^1,2 Such relationships have also been seen for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), and the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (AHA/ACC) Joint Task Force guidelines for PCI have recommended minimum threshold goals for hospitals and operators to ensure the highest quality of PCI care.³

See p 1171

Hannan et al have analyzed the New York State Percutaneous Coronary . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article:

Volume-Outcome Relationships for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in the Stent Era

Edward L. Hannan, Chuntao Wu, Gary Walford, Spencer B. King, III, David R. Holmes, Jr, John A. Ambrose, Samin Sharma, Stanley Katz, Luther T. Clark, and Robert H. Jones
Circulation 2005 112: 1171-1179. [Abstract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. W. Klein, P. Kolm, X. Xu, R. J. Krone, H. V. Anderson, J. S. Rumsfeld, R. G. Brindis, and W. S. Weintraub A Longitudinal Assessment of Coronary Interventional Program Quality: A Report From the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., February 1, 2009; 2(2): 136 - 143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Bittl Reply J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 18, 2006; 48(2): 416 - 416. [Full Text] [PDF]