4.3 Article

Trends in Coronary Revascularization in the United States From 2001 to 2009 Recent Declines in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Volumes

Journal

CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR QUALITY AND OUTCOMES
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 193-197

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.958744

Keywords

angiography; catheterization; epidemiology; angioplasty; revascularization

Funding

  1. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), National Institutes of Health (NIH) [KL2 RR025015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-There is speculation that the volume of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) has been decreasing over the past several years. Published studies of PCI volume have evaluated regional or hospital trends, but few have captured national data. This study describes the use of coronary angiography and revascularization methods in Medicare patients from 2001 to 2009. Methods and Results-This retrospective study used data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from 2001 to 2009. The annual number of coronary angiograms, PCI, intravascular ultrasound, fractional flow reserve, and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery procedures were determined from billing data and adjusted for the number of Medicare recipients. From 2001 to 2009, the average year-to-year increase for PCI was 1.3% per 1000 beneficiaries, whereas the mean annual decrease for CABG surgery was 5%. However, the increase in PCI volume occurred primarily from 2001 to 2004, as there was a mean annual rate of decline of 2.5% from 2004 to 2009; similar trends were seen with diagnostic angiography. The use of intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve steadily increased over time. Conclusions-This study confirms recent speculation that PCI volume has begun to decrease. Although rates of CABG have waned for several decades, all forms of coronary revascularization have been declining since 2004. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4:193-197.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available