The NCDR CathPCI Registry: a US national perspective on care and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention
- Issam Moussa1,
- Anthony Hermann2,
- John C Messenger3,
- Gregory J Dehmer4,
- W Douglas Weaver5,
- John S Rumsfeld6,
- Frederick A Masoudi3
- 1Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
- 2American College of Cardiology Foundation, Washington DC, USA
- 3Division of Cardiology, Cardiac and Vascular Center, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA
- 4Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Scott & White Healthcare, Temple, Texas, USA
- 5Division of Cardiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan, USA
- 6Section of Cardiology, Denver VA Medical Center, Denver, Colorado, USA
- Correspondence to Dr Frederick A Masoudi, Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Box B132, 12401 E 17th Ave., Aurora, CO 80045, USA; fred.masoudi{at}ucdenver.edu
- Received 15 November 2012
- Revised 15 November 2012
- Accepted 20 November 2012
- Published Online First 15 January 2013
Abstract
Aims: The NCDR CathPCI Registry collects detailed clinical, process-of-care and outcomes data for patients undergoing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the USA. The registry contributes to quality of care by providing data feedback on a wide range of performance metrics to participating centres and by facilitating local and national quality improvement efforts.
Interventions: No treatments are mandated, participating centres receive routine quality-of-care and outcomes performance feedback reports and access to a quality dashboard for personalized performance reports.
Population: Patients undergoing cardiac catheterization and PCI are retrospectively identified. No informed consent is required, as data are anonymised. From inception in 1998, more than 12 million records have been submitted from 1577 participating US centres.
Baseline data: Approximately 250 fields encompassing patient demographics, medical history and risk factors, hospital presentation, initial cardiac status, procedural details, medications, laboratory values, and in-hospital outcomes. Linkages with outside sources of data have permitted longitudinal outcomes assessment in some cases. Centre personnel enter the data into the registry, in some cases facilitated by software vendors. There are non-financial incentives for centre participation. Data completeness is noteworthy with most fields missing at rates less than 5%. A comprehensive data quality program is employed to enhance data validity.
Endpoints: Main outcome measures include quality process metrics and in-hospital patient outcomes. Data are available for research by application to: http://www.ncdr.com
