Public Reporting and Case Selection for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: An Analysis From Two Large Multicenter Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Databases Original Research Article

Objectives The purpose of this research was to determine the potential effect of public reporting on case selection for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background Previous studies have suggested that public reporting of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) mortality might result in case selection bias and in denial of care to or out migration of high-risk patients. The potential effect of public reporting on case selection for PCI is unknown. Methods We compared demographics, indications, and outcomes of 11,374 patients included in a multicenter (eight hospitals) PCI database in Michigan where no public reporting is present, with 69,048 patients in a statewide (34 hospitals) PCI database in New York, where public reporting is present. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Results Patients in Michigan more frequently underwent PCI for acute myocardial infarction (14.4% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.0001) and cardiogenic shock (2.56% vs. 0.38%, p < 0.0001) than those in New York. The Michigan cohort also had a higher prevalence of congestive heart failure and extracardiac vascular disease. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower in New York than in Michigan (0.83% vs. 1.54%, p < 0.0001; odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.63). However, after adjustment for comorbidities, there was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.31, p = 0.70, c-statistic 0.88). Conclusions There are significant differences in case mix between patients undergoing PCI in Michigan and New York that result in marked differences in unadjusted mortality rates. A propensity in New York toward not intervening on higher-risk patients because of fear of public reporting of high mortality rates is a possible explanation for these differences.