A comparison of administrative data and quality improvement registries for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Databases are essential in evaluating surgical outcomes and gauging the implementation of new techniques. However, there are important differences in how data from administrative databases and surgical quality improvement (QI) registries are collected and interpreted. Therefore, we aimed to compare...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of vascular surgery 2021-03, Vol.73 (3), p.874-888
Hauptverfasser: Dansey, Kirsten D., de Guerre, Livia E.V.M., Swerdlow, Nicholas J., Li, Chun, Lu, Jinny, Patel, Priya B., Scali, Salvatore T., Giles, Kristina A., Schermerhorn, Marc L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 888
container_issue 3
container_start_page 874
container_title Journal of vascular surgery
container_volume 73
creator Dansey, Kirsten D.
de Guerre, Livia E.V.M.
Swerdlow, Nicholas J.
Li, Chun
Lu, Jinny
Patel, Priya B.
Scali, Salvatore T.
Giles, Kristina A.
Schermerhorn, Marc L.
description Databases are essential in evaluating surgical outcomes and gauging the implementation of new techniques. However, there are important differences in how data from administrative databases and surgical quality improvement (QI) registries are collected and interpreted. Therefore, we aimed to compare trends, demographics, and outcomes of open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in an administrative database and two QI registries. We identified patients undergoing open and endovascular repair of intact and ruptured AAAs between 2012 and 2015 within the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). We described the differences and trends in overall AAA repairs for each data set. Moreover, patient demographics, comorbidities, mortality, and complications were compared between the data sets using Pearson χ2 test. A total of 140,240 NIS patients, 10,898 NSQIP patients, and 26,794 VQI patients were included. Ruptured repairs composed 8.7% of NIS, 11% of NSQIP, and 7.9% of VQI. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) rates for intact repair (range, 83%-84%) and ruptured repair (range, 51%-59%) were similar in the three databases. In general, rates of comorbidities were lower in NIS than in the QI registries. After intact EVAR, in-hospital mortality rates were similar in all three databases (NIS 0.8%, NSQIP 1.0%, and VQI 0.8%; P = .06). However, after intact open repair and ruptured repair, in-hospital mortality was highest in NIS and lowest in VQI (intact open: NIS 5.4%, NSQIP 4.7%, and VQI 3.5% [P < .001]; ruptured EVAR: NIS 24%, NSQIP 20%, and VQI 16% [P < .001]; ruptured open: NIS 36%, NSQIP 31%, and VQI 26% [P < .001]). After stratification by intact and ruptured presentation and repair strategy, several discrepancies in morbidity rates remained between the databases. Overall, the number of cases in NSQIP represents 7% to 8% of the repairs in NIS, and the number of cases in VQI grew from 12% in 2012 to represent 23% of the national sample in 2015. NIS had the largest number of patients as it represents the nationwide experience and is an essential tool to evaluate trends over time. The lower in-hospital mortality seen in NSQIP and VQI questions the generalizability of the studies that use these QI registries. However, with a growing number of hospitals engaging in granular QI initiatives, these QI registries provide a valuable resource to potentially improve
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.06.105
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2424991579</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0741521420315809</els_id><sourcerecordid>2424991579</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-cddcf9342efe8748ceea06dcdf3ef2a1760468ed4f3cb25c19cd392b88876be3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMoOj5-gBvJ0k3HJG3TBFcivkBw4z6kyY1kbJsxSQfm35th1KWrC4fvHM49CF1SsqSE8pvVcrVJS0YYWRJepPYALSiRXcUFkYdoQbqGVi2jzQk6TWlFCKWt6I7RSc24YIS3C_R5h00Y1zr6FCYcHNZ29JNPOersN4CtzhrryeKvWQ8-b7Ef1zFsYIQp4wgfO9JDwi5ErHsbilkPWIeYvSk-mOM2jQVcax_P0ZHTQ4KLn3uG3h8f3u-fq9e3p5f7u9fK1JLnylhrnKwbBg5E1wgDoAm3xroaHNO046ThAmzjatOz1lBpbC1ZL4ToeA_1Gbrex5aiXzOkrEafDAxDqRPmpFjDGilp28mC0j1qYkgpglPr6Ecdt4oStZtYrVSZWO0mVoQXqS2eq5_4uR_B_jl-Ny3A7R6A8uPGQ1TJeJgMWB_BZGWD_yf-G8kzj9g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2424991579</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of administrative data and quality improvement registries for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Dansey, Kirsten D. ; de Guerre, Livia E.V.M. ; Swerdlow, Nicholas J. ; Li, Chun ; Lu, Jinny ; Patel, Priya B. ; Scali, Salvatore T. ; Giles, Kristina A. ; Schermerhorn, Marc L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dansey, Kirsten D. ; de Guerre, Livia E.V.M. ; Swerdlow, Nicholas J. ; Li, Chun ; Lu, Jinny ; Patel, Priya B. ; Scali, Salvatore T. ; Giles, Kristina A. ; Schermerhorn, Marc L.</creatorcontrib><description>Databases are essential in evaluating surgical outcomes and gauging the implementation of new techniques. However, there are important differences in how data from administrative databases and surgical quality improvement (QI) registries are collected and interpreted. Therefore, we aimed to compare trends, demographics, and outcomes of open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in an administrative database and two QI registries. We identified patients undergoing open and endovascular repair of intact and ruptured AAAs between 2012 and 2015 within the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). We described the differences and trends in overall AAA repairs for each data set. Moreover, patient demographics, comorbidities, mortality, and complications were compared between the data sets using Pearson χ2 test. A total of 140,240 NIS patients, 10,898 NSQIP patients, and 26,794 VQI patients were included. Ruptured repairs composed 8.7% of NIS, 11% of NSQIP, and 7.9% of VQI. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) rates for intact repair (range, 83%-84%) and ruptured repair (range, 51%-59%) were similar in the three databases. In general, rates of comorbidities were lower in NIS than in the QI registries. After intact EVAR, in-hospital mortality rates were similar in all three databases (NIS 0.8%, NSQIP 1.0%, and VQI 0.8%; P = .06). However, after intact open repair and ruptured repair, in-hospital mortality was highest in NIS and lowest in VQI (intact open: NIS 5.4%, NSQIP 4.7%, and VQI 3.5% [P &lt; .001]; ruptured EVAR: NIS 24%, NSQIP 20%, and VQI 16% [P &lt; .001]; ruptured open: NIS 36%, NSQIP 31%, and VQI 26% [P &lt; .001]). After stratification by intact and ruptured presentation and repair strategy, several discrepancies in morbidity rates remained between the databases. Overall, the number of cases in NSQIP represents 7% to 8% of the repairs in NIS, and the number of cases in VQI grew from 12% in 2012 to represent 23% of the national sample in 2015. NIS had the largest number of patients as it represents the nationwide experience and is an essential tool to evaluate trends over time. The lower in-hospital mortality seen in NSQIP and VQI questions the generalizability of the studies that use these QI registries. However, with a growing number of hospitals engaging in granular QI initiatives, these QI registries provide a valuable resource to potentially improve the quality of care provided to all patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0741-5214</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6809</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.06.105</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32682065</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Abdominal aortic aneurysm ; Administrative database ; Quality improvement registry</subject><ispartof>Journal of vascular surgery, 2021-03, Vol.73 (3), p.874-888</ispartof><rights>2020 Society for Vascular Surgery</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-cddcf9342efe8748ceea06dcdf3ef2a1760468ed4f3cb25c19cd392b88876be3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-cddcf9342efe8748ceea06dcdf3ef2a1760468ed4f3cb25c19cd392b88876be3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0741521420315809$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32682065$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dansey, Kirsten D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Guerre, Livia E.V.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swerdlow, Nicholas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Chun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Jinny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Priya B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scali, Salvatore T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giles, Kristina A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schermerhorn, Marc L.</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of administrative data and quality improvement registries for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair</title><title>Journal of vascular surgery</title><addtitle>J Vasc Surg</addtitle><description>Databases are essential in evaluating surgical outcomes and gauging the implementation of new techniques. However, there are important differences in how data from administrative databases and surgical quality improvement (QI) registries are collected and interpreted. Therefore, we aimed to compare trends, demographics, and outcomes of open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in an administrative database and two QI registries. We identified patients undergoing open and endovascular repair of intact and ruptured AAAs between 2012 and 2015 within the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). We described the differences and trends in overall AAA repairs for each data set. Moreover, patient demographics, comorbidities, mortality, and complications were compared between the data sets using Pearson χ2 test. A total of 140,240 NIS patients, 10,898 NSQIP patients, and 26,794 VQI patients were included. Ruptured repairs composed 8.7% of NIS, 11% of NSQIP, and 7.9% of VQI. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) rates for intact repair (range, 83%-84%) and ruptured repair (range, 51%-59%) were similar in the three databases. In general, rates of comorbidities were lower in NIS than in the QI registries. After intact EVAR, in-hospital mortality rates were similar in all three databases (NIS 0.8%, NSQIP 1.0%, and VQI 0.8%; P = .06). However, after intact open repair and ruptured repair, in-hospital mortality was highest in NIS and lowest in VQI (intact open: NIS 5.4%, NSQIP 4.7%, and VQI 3.5% [P &lt; .001]; ruptured EVAR: NIS 24%, NSQIP 20%, and VQI 16% [P &lt; .001]; ruptured open: NIS 36%, NSQIP 31%, and VQI 26% [P &lt; .001]). After stratification by intact and ruptured presentation and repair strategy, several discrepancies in morbidity rates remained between the databases. Overall, the number of cases in NSQIP represents 7% to 8% of the repairs in NIS, and the number of cases in VQI grew from 12% in 2012 to represent 23% of the national sample in 2015. NIS had the largest number of patients as it represents the nationwide experience and is an essential tool to evaluate trends over time. The lower in-hospital mortality seen in NSQIP and VQI questions the generalizability of the studies that use these QI registries. However, with a growing number of hospitals engaging in granular QI initiatives, these QI registries provide a valuable resource to potentially improve the quality of care provided to all patients.</description><subject>Abdominal aortic aneurysm</subject><subject>Administrative database</subject><subject>Quality improvement registry</subject><issn>0741-5214</issn><issn>1097-6809</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMoOj5-gBvJ0k3HJG3TBFcivkBw4z6kyY1kbJsxSQfm35th1KWrC4fvHM49CF1SsqSE8pvVcrVJS0YYWRJepPYALSiRXcUFkYdoQbqGVi2jzQk6TWlFCKWt6I7RSc24YIS3C_R5h00Y1zr6FCYcHNZ29JNPOersN4CtzhrryeKvWQ8-b7Ef1zFsYIQp4wgfO9JDwi5ErHsbilkPWIeYvSk-mOM2jQVcax_P0ZHTQ4KLn3uG3h8f3u-fq9e3p5f7u9fK1JLnylhrnKwbBg5E1wgDoAm3xroaHNO046ThAmzjatOz1lBpbC1ZL4ToeA_1Gbrex5aiXzOkrEafDAxDqRPmpFjDGilp28mC0j1qYkgpglPr6Ecdt4oStZtYrVSZWO0mVoQXqS2eq5_4uR_B_jl-Ny3A7R6A8uPGQ1TJeJgMWB_BZGWD_yf-G8kzj9g</recordid><startdate>202103</startdate><enddate>202103</enddate><creator>Dansey, Kirsten D.</creator><creator>de Guerre, Livia E.V.M.</creator><creator>Swerdlow, Nicholas J.</creator><creator>Li, Chun</creator><creator>Lu, Jinny</creator><creator>Patel, Priya B.</creator><creator>Scali, Salvatore T.</creator><creator>Giles, Kristina A.</creator><creator>Schermerhorn, Marc L.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202103</creationdate><title>A comparison of administrative data and quality improvement registries for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair</title><author>Dansey, Kirsten D. ; de Guerre, Livia E.V.M. ; Swerdlow, Nicholas J. ; Li, Chun ; Lu, Jinny ; Patel, Priya B. ; Scali, Salvatore T. ; Giles, Kristina A. ; Schermerhorn, Marc L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-cddcf9342efe8748ceea06dcdf3ef2a1760468ed4f3cb25c19cd392b88876be3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abdominal aortic aneurysm</topic><topic>Administrative database</topic><topic>Quality improvement registry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dansey, Kirsten D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Guerre, Livia E.V.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swerdlow, Nicholas J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Chun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Jinny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Priya B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scali, Salvatore T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giles, Kristina A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schermerhorn, Marc L.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of vascular surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dansey, Kirsten D.</au><au>de Guerre, Livia E.V.M.</au><au>Swerdlow, Nicholas J.</au><au>Li, Chun</au><au>Lu, Jinny</au><au>Patel, Priya B.</au><au>Scali, Salvatore T.</au><au>Giles, Kristina A.</au><au>Schermerhorn, Marc L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of administrative data and quality improvement registries for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair</atitle><jtitle>Journal of vascular surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Vasc Surg</addtitle><date>2021-03</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>874</spage><epage>888</epage><pages>874-888</pages><issn>0741-5214</issn><eissn>1097-6809</eissn><abstract>Databases are essential in evaluating surgical outcomes and gauging the implementation of new techniques. However, there are important differences in how data from administrative databases and surgical quality improvement (QI) registries are collected and interpreted. Therefore, we aimed to compare trends, demographics, and outcomes of open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in an administrative database and two QI registries. We identified patients undergoing open and endovascular repair of intact and ruptured AAAs between 2012 and 2015 within the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). We described the differences and trends in overall AAA repairs for each data set. Moreover, patient demographics, comorbidities, mortality, and complications were compared between the data sets using Pearson χ2 test. A total of 140,240 NIS patients, 10,898 NSQIP patients, and 26,794 VQI patients were included. Ruptured repairs composed 8.7% of NIS, 11% of NSQIP, and 7.9% of VQI. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) rates for intact repair (range, 83%-84%) and ruptured repair (range, 51%-59%) were similar in the three databases. In general, rates of comorbidities were lower in NIS than in the QI registries. After intact EVAR, in-hospital mortality rates were similar in all three databases (NIS 0.8%, NSQIP 1.0%, and VQI 0.8%; P = .06). However, after intact open repair and ruptured repair, in-hospital mortality was highest in NIS and lowest in VQI (intact open: NIS 5.4%, NSQIP 4.7%, and VQI 3.5% [P &lt; .001]; ruptured EVAR: NIS 24%, NSQIP 20%, and VQI 16% [P &lt; .001]; ruptured open: NIS 36%, NSQIP 31%, and VQI 26% [P &lt; .001]). After stratification by intact and ruptured presentation and repair strategy, several discrepancies in morbidity rates remained between the databases. Overall, the number of cases in NSQIP represents 7% to 8% of the repairs in NIS, and the number of cases in VQI grew from 12% in 2012 to represent 23% of the national sample in 2015. NIS had the largest number of patients as it represents the nationwide experience and is an essential tool to evaluate trends over time. The lower in-hospital mortality seen in NSQIP and VQI questions the generalizability of the studies that use these QI registries. However, with a growing number of hospitals engaging in granular QI initiatives, these QI registries provide a valuable resource to potentially improve the quality of care provided to all patients.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>32682065</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jvs.2020.06.105</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0741-5214
ispartof Journal of vascular surgery, 2021-03, Vol.73 (3), p.874-888
issn 0741-5214
1097-6809
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2424991579
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Abdominal aortic aneurysm
Administrative database
Quality improvement registry
title A comparison of administrative data and quality improvement registries for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T05%3A26%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20administrative%20data%20and%20quality%20improvement%20registries%20for%20abdominal%20aortic%20aneurysm%20repair&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20vascular%20surgery&rft.au=Dansey,%20Kirsten%20D.&rft.date=2021-03&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=874&rft.epage=888&rft.pages=874-888&rft.issn=0741-5214&rft.eissn=1097-6809&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jvs.2020.06.105&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2424991579%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2424991579&rft_id=info:pmid/32682065&rft_els_id=S0741521420315809&rfr_iscdi=true