Association of Physician Certification in Interventional Cardiology With In-Hospital Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Issue 19 (10th November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fiorilli, Paul N.; Minges, Karl E.; Herrin, Jeph; Messenger, John C.; Ting, Henry H.; Nallamothu, Brahmajee K.; Lipner, Rebecca S.; Hess, Brian J.; Holmboe, Eric S.; Brennan, Joseph J.; Curtis, Jeptha P.
• Is Part Of: Circulation. Volume 132:Issue 19(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-11-10
• Subjects: acute coronary syndromes -- acute myocardial infarction -- angioplasty -- catheter-based coronary interventions, stents -- chronic ischemic heart disease -- coronary revascularization -- health policy and outcome research -- registries; Blood -- Circulation -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Blood Circulation; Cardiovascular System; Vascular Diseases; 616.1
• DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017523
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0009-7322

Abstract

Abstract : 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.