This editorial refers to ‘The relation between volume and outcome of coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, by P.N. Post et al., on page 1985

In the past 30 years, a large number of studies predominantly performed in the USA have investigated the relationship between short-term outcomes and provider volume for a wide variety of medical conditions and procedures, in particular percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery.1–3

With the use of adequate statistical methods, Post et al.4 have performed a meta-analysis of 10 PCI studies, including 1 322 342 patients in 1746 hospitals, and of 10 CABG studies, including 1 754 777 patients in 2391 hospitals. They found that patients undergoing PCI or CABG in high-volume hospitals performing >600 cases per year exhibit significantly lower periprocedural mortality than those treated at lower volume hospitals.

This meta-analysis raises several important questions. Does the volume–outcome relationship persist after adjusting for patient case mix? Does the association vary as a function of patient age and predicted risk? To what extent is this association affected by patient clustering at specific centres? How do site variance-related issues affect the association? Is the association between hospital volume and outcome influenced by individual physician volume? What are the potential health policy implications of using hospital volume as a quality indicator?

Impact of volume on outcome of CABG surgery

With few exceptions,5,6 studies have indicated that hospitals and surgeons with higher volumes have lower mortality rates for CABG operations.7–10 The relative risk reduction for CABG-related mortality was 9% in the present meta-analysis and was shown to remain valid in the most recent studies. Results from 30 New York State centres noted a significant decrease in operative mortality in high-volume compared with low-volume hospitals, a difference that was maintained after risk adjustment.8 Although this state-wide study was among the most complete analyses based on clinical data, only a small proportion (<3%) had their CABG performed at low-volume hospitals due to New York State restrictions. There appears to be a substantial relationship between the volume of activity of the individual surgeon and outcome.8,11 However, annual surgeon volume is only one measure of surgeon experience. The cumulative surgeon volume occurring over many years could be a more appropriate metric. Another open issue is whether annual surgeon volume is equally important in determining quality of care for surgeons with many years of experience vs. less experienced surgeons. Zacharias et al.6 showed that, when the surgical team applies similar patient care standards and clinical pathways and emphasizes a team approach to cardiac surgery care, it is possible to achieve similar operative CABG outcomes at centres with low-volume or high-volume cardiac surgery programmes.

Impact of volume on PCI outcome

The relative risk reduction for PCI-related mortality was 13% in the present meta-analysis and was not attenuated over time. The advent of coronary stents has reduced the incidence of PCI-related complications, including the risk of emergency CABG. As a result, procedural outcomes of elective procedures have been levelled out. In a Californian registry study carried out between 1984 and 1996, the disparity in outcomes between low- and high-volume centres narrowed, and complication rates improved in all hospitals.12 Therefore, for procedures with low short-term mortality such as PCI, additional outcome measures, including the need for same-day CABG surgery, same-stay CABG surgery, and readmission within a short period of time for complications related to the index admission, should be considered. In a population-based study, examining the data from New York's PCI Reporting system in 1998–2000, Hannan et al.11 showed that for hospital volumes <400 and operator volumes <75, the respective odds of mortality, same-day CABG surgery, and same-stay CABG surgery were 5.9, 4.0, and 3.9 times the odds for hospital volumes of ≥400 and operator volumes of ≥75.

The volume–outcome relationship appears even more meaningful for high-risk and emergency PCI. Vakili et al.13 reported on the global experience across an entire US state, including rural and urban, teaching and non-teaching, not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals. The average mortality rate for patients treated with primary PCI for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was ∼5-fold higher than in patients undergoing elective PCI. The AMI patient is more often experiencing active ischaemia, manifested by chest pain, arrhythmias, and haemodynamic instability. High-volume centres tended to administer life-saving reperfusion therapies faster than low-volume centres. The difference was larger for patients who underwent primary PCI than for those who received fibrinolytic therapy.14 Similar findings were reported in two recent studies from Europe. Spaulding et al.15 found a strong inverse relationship between hospital PCI volume and in-hospital mortality after emergency procedures. Zahn et al.,16 reporting on behalf of the ALKK registry, have demonstrated, in a study not included in the present meta-analysis, a significant inverse relationship between hospital mortality (from 4.41 to 2.78%, P = 0.004) and quartiles of PCI volume. Similar findings were reported from the multicentric German Cypher registry.17 Therefore, tolerance of low-volume thresholds for angioplasty centres with the purpose of providing primary PCI should not be recommended, even in underserved areas.

Cross-talk between volumes of CABG and PCI procedures

Programmes that perform a relatively large number of PCI procedures and a low volume of CABG procedures might tend to perform CABG procedures on a more complex patient population. Carey et al.18 showed that a statistically significant effect of PCI volume on CABG mortality occurs in lower-volume hospitals when the PCI/CABG ratio exceeds 2.0. Compared with high-volume hospitals, low-volume hospitals tended to operate on patients at higher risk and under more emergent conditions. Reasons for those differences may include adverse selection, variance in clinical coding among hospitals, and differential threshold for surgery due to altered cluster experience and/or institutional financial pressure. More straightforward cases are referred for PCI, and patients with characteristics not defined in risk models, such as poor vessel quality or diffuse disease, tend to be referred for surgery.

Association or causal relationship?

The literature distinguishes between two hypotheses as the potential explanations for the inverse volume–outcome relationship. The first is that ‘practice makes perfect’. The assumption is that a greater volume of patients should allow the ‘operative’ team to develop greater skills and judgement in the management of complex clinical conditions and therefore achieve better outcomes. The second is called ‘selective referral patterns’: ‘operating’ teams with superior outcomes attract a greater number of patients. These hypotheses have different policy implications. Under the first hypothesis, and in an environment where cost containment is important, centralization in the least costly institution would be a reasonable strategy; institutions would logically improve outcome with further experience and accomplish this at a lower cost. If the second hypothesis holds, then this strategy would not be reasonable, and centralization should be in those institutions with better outcomes. Both hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, as a more accomplished team will enjoy selective referral and demonstrate a greater improvement in outcomes as a result of the larger practice than would a less accomplished team.

Policy decisions

In the past few years, there have been advocates in several countries for changing the landscape of health care delivery based on what is known about volume–outcome relationship. It was reasoned that a significant number of procedure-related deaths may be avoided if a policy of ‘regionalization’ was adopted to avoid low-volume hospitals. Such procedure volume-driven policy guidelines may have a number of drawbacks: low-volume hospitals with good outcomes are handled in the same way as those with poor quality of care, similarly higher quality of care is assumed at all high-volume hospitals, and decisions do not account for potentially substantial physician–volume confounding effects. Enforcing a strict regionalization policy may cause significant disruption in the process of care delivery, with thousands of patients being referred away from low-volume to high-volume hospitals. Therefore, it has been recommended that such referrals be limited to high-risk patients. Risk of revascularization procedures can be estimated from a number of risk scores, of which the EuroSCORE for estimation of CABG-associated risk appears very robust.19 High-risk PCI procedures pertain both to the acute clinical presentations, i.e. cardiogenic shock, emergency or primary PCI cases, and to a number of anatomic subsets, among which are PCI of unprotected distal left main, chronic total occlusions, and complex multivessel disease.

Volume as a surrogate for quality

Using hospital procedural volume as a quality indicator is attractive and widely accepted. This structural characteristic is readily available from administrative data, requires no complex adjustment techniques, is easily interpretable by the public, and is consistent with the common belief that ‘practice makes perfect’. Establishing a sound link with outcome requires, however, the availability of detailed clinical data as well as appropriate risk adjustment. Collection of clinical data sets for the purpose of public reporting has raised concerns about upcoding of risk factors, avoidance of performing interventions on high-risk patients, or lowering of indication thresholds in order to inflate procedural volumes. At the same time, it was shown that programmes introduced in New York and other US states have been associated with reductions in procedural deaths, in part because monitoring of comparative outcomes encourages quality improvement efforts. Peterson et al.9 concluded that hospital procedural volumes are best considered as a surrogate metric for quality in a setting where other more direct process and outcome assessments are not available. It seems reasonable to support the continued growth of national clinical databases, which are capable not only of tracking risk-adjusted care patterns and outcomes, but also of improving them.

Recent cross-sectional analysis of Medicare claims

Ross et al.20 recently investigated the potential relationship between hospital volume and 30-day mortality for three common medical conditions, based on nearly 3.5 million hospitalization records. They found that Medicare beneficiaries who were hospitalized between 2004 and 2006 in acute care hospitals in the USA for AMI, heart failure, or pneumonia had a decrease in the rate of death if they were admitted to a hospital that handled a large condition-specific volume of patients every year.20 However, the relationship between volume and decreased mortality was attenuated at greater volumes, and there was a threshold for each condition above which an increase in hospital volume was no longer associated with lower mortality. Moreover, once the annual volume reached 100 cases, the curve representing the association between volume and risk-adjusted mortality began to flatten, suggesting that the benefit of an increased volume of patients at a hospital would be most pronounced at low-volume hospitals and would be attenuated as the hospital's volume increased.

Given the complexity of factors that contribute to patient outcome after revascularization procedures, this recent study is consistent with previous evidence that the best performance is obtained through an optimal interaction between human and material resources, experience and routine, process and process management, case-mix and volume load.

Conclusions

Data collection and reporting mechanisms are important and therefore they should be accurate and timely. The focus on short-term mortality should be extended to long-term outcomes and patient's symptoms, as reflected by their functional status and quality of life, particularly in light of the growing emphasis on the appropriate use of procedures. We need to understand better how the information is used by physicians, hospitals, the public, purchasers, payers, and referring doctors. Compliance with guidelines on hospital volumes should be strongly encouraged by national and international cardiology and cardiac surgery societies, and their implementation monitored by local regulatory boards. While the availability and accuracy of clinical quality metrics are constantly improved, it is appropriate to rely on procedural volumes, given the indisputable evidence that low volume means worse outcome. For example, the Leapfrog group recommends contracting with hospitals having annual volumes of at least 400 procedures a year for PCI, and >450 for CABG. Among other national or international agencies, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association both recommend that PCI be performed by experienced operators in high-volume hospitals, namely >400 PCI procedures per year per hospital and at least 75 procedures per year for operators.21

Conflict of interest: none declared.

References

1
Dudley
RA
Johansen
KL
Brand
R
Rennie
DJ
Milstein
A
Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths
JAMA
 , 
2000
, vol. 
283
 (pg. 
1159
-
1166
)
2
Halm
EA
Lee
C
Chassin
MR
Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature
Ann Intern Med
 , 
2002
, vol. 
137
 (pg. 
511
-
520
)
3
Luft
HS
Bunker
JP
Enthoven
AC
Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality
N Engl J Med
 , 
1979
, vol. 
301
 (pg. 
1364
-
1369
)
4
Post
P
Kuijpers
M
Ebels
T
Zijlstra
F
The relation between volume and outcome of coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Eur Heart J
 , 
2010
, vol. 
31
 (pg. 
1985
-
1992
First published on 28 May 2010. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq151
5
Sollano
JA
Gelijns
AC
Moskowitz
AJ
Heitjan
DF
Cullinane
S
Saha
T
Chen
JM
Roohan
PJ
Reemtsma
K
Shields
EP
Volume–outcome relationships in cardiovascular operations: New York State, 1990–1995
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
 , 
1999
, vol. 
117
 (pg. 
419
-
428
)
6
Zacharias
A
Schwann
TA
Riordan
CJ
Durham
SJ
Shah
A
Papadimos
TJ
Engoren
M
Habib
RH
Is hospital procedure volume a reliable marker of quality for coronary artery bypass surgery? A comparison of risk and propensity adjusted operative and midterm outcomes
Ann Thorac Surg
 , 
2005
, vol. 
79
 (pg. 
1961
-
1969
)
7
Birkmeyer
JD
Siewers
AE
Finlayson
EV
Stukel
TA
Lucas
FL
Batista
I
Welch
HG
Wennberg
DE
Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States
N Engl J Med
 , 
2002
, vol. 
346
 (pg. 
1128
-
1137
)
8
Hannan
EL
Wu
C
Ryan
TJ
Bennett
E
Culliford
AT
Gold
JP
Hartman
A
Isom
OW
Jones
RH
McNeil
B
Rose
EA
Subramanian
VA
Do hospitals and surgeons with higher coronary artery bypass graft surgery volumes still have lower risk-adjusted mortality rates?
Circulation
 , 
2003
, vol. 
108
 (pg. 
795
-
801
)
9
Peterson
ED
Coombs
LP
DeLong
ER
Haan
CK
Ferguson
TB
Procedural volume as a marker of quality for CABG surgery
JAMA
 , 
2004
, vol. 
291
 (pg. 
195
-
201
)
10
Wu
C
Hannan
EL
Ryan
TJ
Bennett
E
Culliford
AT
Gold
JP
Isom
OW
Jones
RH
McNeil
B
Rose
EA
Subramanian
VA
Is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on the in-hospital mortality rate for coronary artery bypass graft surgery limited to patients at high risk?
Circulation
 , 
2004
, vol. 
110
 (pg. 
784
-
789
)
11
Hannan
EL
Wu
C
Walford
G
King
SB
III
Holmes
DR
Jr
Ambrose
JA
Sharma
S
Katz
S
Clark
LT
Jones
RH
Volume–outcome relationships for percutaneous coronary interventions in the stent era
Circulation
 , 
2005
, vol. 
112
 (pg. 
1171
-
1179
)
12
Ho
V
Evolution of the volume–outcome relation for hospitals performing coronary angioplasty
Circulation
 , 
2000
, vol. 
101
 (pg. 
1806
-
1811
)
13
Vakili
BA
Kaplan
R
Brown
DL
Volume–outcome relation for physicians and hospitals performing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in New York state
Circulation
 , 
2001
, vol. 
104
 (pg. 
2171
-
2176
)
14
Canto
JG
Every
NR
Magid
DJ
Rogers
WJ
Malmgren
JA
Frederick
PD
French
WJ
Tiefenbrunn
AJ
Misra
VK
Kiefe
CI
Barron
HV
The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators
N Engl J Med
 , 
2000
, vol. 
342
 (pg. 
1573
-
1580
)
15
Spaulding
C
Morice
MC
Lancelin
B
El Haddad
S
Lepage
E
Bataille
S
Tresca
JP
Mouranche
X
Fosse
S
Monchi
M
de Vernejoul
N
Is the volume–outcome relation still an issue in the era of PCI with systematic stenting? Results of the greater Paris area PCI registry
Eur Heart J
 , 
2006
, vol. 
27
 (pg. 
1054
-
1060
)
16
Zahn
R
Gottwik
M
Hochadel
M
Senges
J
Zeymer
U
Vogt
A
Meinertz
T
Dietz
R
Hauptmann
KE
Grube
E
Kerber
S
Sechtem
U
Volume–outcome relation for contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in daily clinical practice: is it limited to high-risk patients? Results from the Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausarzte (ALKK)
Heart
 , 
2008
, vol. 
94
 (pg. 
329
-
335
)
17
Khattab
AA
Hamm
CW
Senges
J
Toelg
R
Geist
V
Bonzel
T
Kelm
M
Levenson
B
Nienaber
CA
Pfannebecker
T
Sabin
G
Schneider
S
Tebbe
U
Neumann
FJ
Richardt
G
Sirolimus-eluting stent treatment at high-volume centers confers lower mortality at 6-month follow-up: results from the prospective multicenter German Cypher Registry
Circulation
 , 
2009
, vol. 
120
 (pg. 
600
-
606
)
18
Carey
JS
Danielsen
B
Gold
JP
Rossiter
SJ
Procedure rates and outcomes of coronary revascularization procedures in California and New York
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
 , 
2005
, vol. 
129
 (pg. 
1276
-
1282
)
19
Roques
F
Nashef
SA
Michel
P
Gauducheau
E
de
VC
Baudet
E
Cortina
J
David
M
Faichney
A
Gabrielle
F
Gams
E
Harjula
A
Jones
MT
Pintor
PP
Salamon
R
Thulin
L
Risk factors and outcome in European cardiac surgery: analysis of the EuroSCORE multinational database of 19030 patients
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
 , 
1999
, vol. 
15
 (pg. 
816
-
822
)
20
Ross
JS
Normand
SL
Wang
Y
Ko
DT
Chen
J
Drye
EE
Keenan
PS
Lichtman
JH
Bueno
H
Schreiner
GC
Krumholz
HM
Hospital volume and 30-day mortality for three common medical conditions
N Engl J Med
 , 
2010
, vol. 
362
 (pg. 
1110
-
1118
)
21
Smith
SC
Jr
Feldman
TE
Hirshfeld
JW
Jr.
Jacobs
AK
Kern
MJ
King
SB
III
Morrison
DA
O'Neil
WW
Schaff
HV
Whitlow
PL
Williams
DO
Antman
EM
Adams
CD
Anderson
JL
Faxon
DP
Fuster
V
Halperin
JL
Hiratzka
LF
Hunt
SA
Nishimura
R
Ornato
JP
Page
RL
Riegel
B
ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)
Circulation
 , 
2006
, vol. 
113
 (pg. 
e166
-
e286
)

Author notes

The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.
doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq151

Comments

0 Comments