Variation in critical care unit admission rates and outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes or heart failure among high- and low-volume cardiac hospitals

J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Feb 27;4(3):e001708. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.114.001708.

Abstract

Background: Little is known about cross-hospital differences in critical care units admission rates and related resource utilization and outcomes among patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or heart failure (HF).

Methods and results: Using a population-based sample of 16,078 patients admitted to a critical care unit with a primary diagnosis of ACS (n=14,610) or HF (n=1467) between April 1, 2003 and March 31, 2013 in Alberta, Canada, we stratified hospitals into high (>250), medium (200 to 250), or low (<200) volume based on their annual volume of all ACS and HF hospitalization. The percentage of hospitalized patients admitted to critical care units varied across low, medium, and high-volume hospitals for both ACS and HF as follows: 77.9%, 81.3%, and 76.3% (P<0.001), and 18.0%, 16.3%, and 13.0% (P<0.001), respectively. Compared to low-volume units, critical care patients with ACS and HF admitted to high-volume hospitals had shorter mean critical care stays (56.6 versus 95.6 hours, P<0.001), more critical care procedures (1.9 versus 1.2 per patient, <0.001), and higher resource-intensive weighting (2.8 versus 1.5, P<0.001). No differences in in-hospital mortality (5.5% versus 6.2%, adjusted odds ratio 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.41) were observed between high- and low-volume hospitals; however, 30-day cardiovascular readmissions (4.6% versus 6.8%, odds ratio 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.99) and cardiovascular emergency-room visits (6.6% versus 9.5%, odds ratio 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94) were lower in high-volume compared to low-volume hospitals. Outcomes stratified by ACS or HF admission diagnosis were similar.

Conclusions: Cardiac patients hospitalized in low-volume hospitals were more frequently admitted to critical care units and had longer hospitals stays despite lower resource-intensive weighting. These findings may provide opportunities to standardize critical care utilization for ACS and HF patients across high- and low-volume hospitals.

Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; critical care; heart failure; hospital variation.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Acute Coronary Syndrome / diagnosis
  • Acute Coronary Syndrome / mortality
  • Acute Coronary Syndrome / therapy*
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Alberta
  • Cardiology Service, Hospital / statistics & numerical data
  • Cardiology Service, Hospital / trends
  • Chi-Square Distribution
  • Critical Care / trends*
  • Databases, Factual
  • Emergency Service, Hospital / statistics & numerical data
  • Emergency Service, Hospital / trends
  • Female
  • Health Care Surveys
  • Health Resources / statistics & numerical data
  • Health Resources / trends
  • Heart Failure / diagnosis
  • Heart Failure / mortality
  • Heart Failure / therapy*
  • Hospital Mortality / trends
  • Hospitals, High-Volume / trends*
  • Hospitals, Low-Volume / trends*
  • Humans
  • Length of Stay / trends
  • Logistic Models
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Multivariate Analysis
  • Odds Ratio
  • Patient Admission / trends*
  • Patient Readmission / trends
  • Practice Patterns, Physicians' / trends*
  • Process Assessment, Health Care / trends*
  • Quality Indicators, Health Care / trends
  • Risk Factors
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome