Institutional Variance in Mortality after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Health Services Research, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

2 Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

3 Institute of Health Policy and Management, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

4 Division of Social Welfare and Health Administration, Wonkwang University, Iksan, South Korea

5 Department of Health Policy and Informatics, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Graduate School, Tokyo, Japan

6 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

7 Department of Public Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

8 Institute of Aging, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

Abstract

Background 
Although there have been studies that compared outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction across countries, little focus has been placed on institutional variance of outcomes. The aim of the present study was to compare institutional variance in mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction and factors explaining this variance across different health systems.

Methods 
Data on inpatients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction in 2016 were obtained from the National Health Insurance Data Sharing Service in Korea, the Diagnosis Procedure Combination Study Group Database in Japan, and the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. Multilevel analyses with inpatient mortality as the outcome and the hierarchical structure of patients nested within hospitals were conducted, adjusting for common patient-level and hospital-level variables. We compared the intraclass correlation coefficient and the proportion of variance explained by hospital-level characteristics across the three health systems.

Results 
There were 17,351 patients from 160 Korean hospitals, 29,804 patients from 660 Japanese hospitals, and 10,863 patients from 104 Taiwanese hospitals included in the analysis. Inpatient mortality rates were 6.3%, 7.3%, and 6.0% in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, respectively. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, Taiwan had the lowest variation in mortality (intraclass correlation coefficient, 1.8%), followed by Korea (2.2%) and then Japan (4.5%). The measured hospital characteristics explained 38%, 19%, and 9% of the institutional variance in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, respectively.

Conclusion 
Korea, Japan, and Taiwan had similarly uniform outcomes across hospitals for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. However, Japan had a relatively large institutional variance in mortality and a lower proportion of variation explainable by hospital characteristics, compared with Korea and Taiwan.

Keywords

References

  1. Reed GW, Rossi JE, Cannon CP. Acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2017;389(10065):197-210. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30677-8
  2. Mehta SR, Bassand JP, Chrolavicius S, et al; the CURRENT–OASIS 7 Investigators. Dose comparisons of clopidogrel and aspirin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(10):930-942. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0909475
  3. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. 2013;381(9867):629-638. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60141-5
  4. Bhatt DL, Stone GW, Mahaffey KW, et al; the CHAMPION PHOENIX Investigators. Effect of platelet inhibition with cangrelor during PCI on ischemic events. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(14):1303-1313. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1300815
  5. Jolly SS, Cairns JA, Yusuf S, et al. Randomized trial of primary PCI with or without routine manual thrombectomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(15):1389-1398. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415098
  6. White HD, Chew DP. Acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2008;372(9638):570-584. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61237-4
  7. Curry LA, Spatz E, Cherlin E, et al. What distinguishes top-performing hospitals in acute myocardial infarction mortality rates? A qualitative study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(6):384-390. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-6-201103150-00003
  8. Wasfy JH, Borden WB, Secemsky EA, McCabe JM, Yeh RW. Public reporting in cardiovascular medicine: accountability, unintended consequences, and promise for improvement. 2015;131(17):1518-1527. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014118
  9. Wadhera RK, Joynt Maddox KE, Yeh RW, Bhatt DL. Public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes: moving beyond the status quo. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3(7):635-640. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0947
  10. Chung SC, Gedeborg R, Nocholas O, et al. Acute myocardial infarction: a comparison of short-term survival in national outcome registries in Sweden and the UK. 2014;383(9925):1305-1312. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62070-X
  11. Hagen TP, Häkkinen U, Belicza E, Fatore G, Goude F; EuroHOPE study group. Acute myocardial infarction, use of percutaneous coronary intervention, and mortality: a comparative effectiveness analysis covering seven European countries. Health Econ. 2015;24(Suppl 2):88-101. doi: 10.1002/hec.3263
  12. Heijink R, Engelfriet P, Rehnberg C, Kittelsen SA, Häkkinen U; EuroHOPE study group. A window on geographic variation in health care: insights from EuroHOPE. Health Econ. 2015;24(Suppl 2):164-177. doi: 10.1002/hec.3287
  13. André R, Bongard V, Elosua R, et al. International differences in acute coronary syndrome patients’ baseline characteristics, clinical management and outcomes in Western Europe: the EURHOBOP study. Heart. 2014;100(15):1201-1207. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2013-305196
  14. Lobo MF, Azzone V, Azevedo LF, et al. A comparison of in-hospital acute myocardial infarction management between Portugal and the United States: 2000–2010. Int J Qual Health Care. 2017;29(5):669-678. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx092
  15. Hsing AW, Ioannidis JPA. Nationwide population science: lessons from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1527-1529. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3540
  16. Seong SC, Kim YY, Khang YH, et al. Data resource profile: the National Health Information Database of the National Health Insurance Service in South Korea. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(3):799-800. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw253
  17. Yasunaga H. Real world data in Japan: chapter II the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Annals of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019;1(3):76-79. doi: 10.37737/ace.1.3_76
  18. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130-1139. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83
  19. Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(6):676-682. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq433
  20. OECD Regions at a Glance 2013. OECD Publishing; 2013. doi: 10.1787/reg_glance-2013-en
  21. Merlo J, Wagner P, Ghith N, Leckie G. An original stepwise multilevel logistic regression analysis of discriminatory accuracy: the case of neighbourhoods and health. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(4):e0153778. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153778
  22. Austin PC, Merlo J. Intermediate and advanced topics in multilevel logistic regression analysis. Stat Med. 2017;36(20):3257-3277. doi: 10.1002/sim.7336
  23. Merlo J. Multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy (MAIHDA) within an intersectional framework. Soc Sci Med. 2018;203:74-80. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.026
  24. Larsen K, Merlo J. Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(1):81-88. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi017
  25. Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H, et al. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(4):290-297. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.029454
  26. Merlo J, Wagner P, Leckie G. A simple multilevel approach for analysing geographical inequalities in public health reports: the case of municipality differences in obesity. Health Place. 2019;58:102145. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102145
  27. Alkhouli M, Alqahtani F, Kalra A, et al. Trends in characteristics and outcomes of hospital inpatients undergoing coronary revascularization in the United States, 2003–2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2):e1921326. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.21326
International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 28 February 2023

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 19 September 2021
  • Revise Date: 14 August 2022
  • Accept Date: 26 February 2023
  • First Publish Date: 28 February 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics