Joint Commission Primary Stroke Centers Utilize More rt‐PA in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Journal of the American Heart Association (Impact Factor: 4.31). 02/2013; 2(2):e000071. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.112.000071
Source: PubMed


The Joint Commission began certifying primary stroke centers (PSCs) in December 2003 and provides a standardized definition of stroke center care. It is unknown if PSCs outperform noncertified hospitals. We hypothesized that PSCs would use more recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) for ischemic stroke than would non-PSCs.
Data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2009. The analysis was limited to states that publicly reported hospital identity. All patients ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke were included. Subjects were excluded if the treating hospital was not identified, if it was not possible to determine the temporal relationship between certification and admission, and/or if admitted as a transfer. Rt-PA was defined by ICD9 procedure code 99.10. All eligibility criteria were met by 323 228 discharges from 26 states. There were 63 145 (19.5%) at certified PSCs. Intravenous rt-PA was administered to 3.1% overall: 2.2% at non-PSCs and 6.7% at PSCs. Between 2004 and 2009, rt-PA administration increased from 1.4% to 3.3% at non-PSCs and from 6.0% to 7.6% at PSCs. In a multivariable model incorporating year, age, sex, race, insurance, income, comorbidities, DRG-based disease severity, and hospital characteristics, evaluation at a PSC was significantly associated with rt-PA utilization (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.16).
Subjects evaluated at PSCs were more likely to receive rt-PA than those evaluated at non-PSCs. This association was significant after adjustment for patient and hospital-level variables. Systems of care are necessary to ensure stroke patients have rapid access to PSCs throughout the United States.

Download full-text


Available from: Karen C Albright, Oct 03, 2015
28 Reads
  • Source
    Journal of the American Heart Association 02/2013; 2(2):e000120. DOI:10.1161/JAHA.113.000120 · 4.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purpose: Evaluation at primary stroke centers (PSCs) has the potential to improve outcomes for patients with stroke. We looked for differences in evaluation at Joint Commission certified PSCs by race, education, income, and geography (urban versus nonurban; Southeastern Stroke Belt versus non-Stroke Belt). Methods: Community-dwelling, black and white participants from the national Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) prospective population-based cohort were enrolled between January 2003 and October 2007. Participants were contacted at 6-month intervals for suspected stroke events. For suspected stroke events, it was determined whether the evaluating hospital was a certified PSC. Results: Of 1000 suspected strokes, 204 (20.4%) strokes were evaluated at a PSC. A smaller proportion of women than men (17.8% versus 23.0%; P=0.04), those with a previous stroke (15.1% versus 21.6%; P=0.04), those living in the Stroke Belt (14.7% versus 27.3%; P<0.001), and those in a nonurban area (9.1% versus 23.1%; P<0.001) were evaluated at a PSC. There were no differences by race, education, or income. In multivariable analysis, subjects were less likely to be evaluated at a PSC if they lived in a nonurban area (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.67) or lived in the Stroke Belt (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.77) or had a previous stroke (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.78). Conclusions: Disparities in evaluation by PSCs are predominately related to geographic factors but not to race, education, or low income. Despite an increased burden of cerebrovascular disease in the Stroke Belt, subjects there were less likely to be evaluated at certified hospitals.
    Stroke 05/2013; 44(7). DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.000162 · 5.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital certification and recognition programs represent 2 independent but commonly used systems to distinguish hospitals, yet they have not been directly compared. This study assessed acute ischemic stroke quality of care measure conformity by hospitals receiving Primary Stroke Center (PSC) certification and those receiving the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Stroke (GWTG-Stroke) Performance Achievement Award (PAA) recognition. The patient and hospital characteristics as well as performance/quality measures for acute ischemic stroke from 1356 hospitals participating in the GWTG-Stroke Program 2010-2012 were compared. Hospitals were classified as PAA+/PSC+ (hospitals n=410, patients n=169 302), PAA+/PSC- (n=415, n=129 454), PAA-/PSC+ (n=88, n=26 386), and PAA-/PSC- (n=443, n=75 565). A comprehensive set of stroke measures were compared with adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics. Patient characteristics were similar by PAA and PSC status but PAA-/PSC- hospitals were more likely to be smaller and nonteaching. Measure conformity was highest for PAA+/PSC+ and PAA+/PSC- hospitals, intermediate for PAA-/PSC+ hospitals, and lowest for PAA-/PSC- hospitals (all-or-none care measure 91.2%, 91.2%, 84.3%, and 76.9%, respectively). After adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, PAA+/PSC+, PAA+/PSC-, and PAA-/PSC+ hospitals had 3.15 (95% CIs 2.86 to 3.47); 3.23 (2.93 to 3.56) and 1.72 (1.47 to 2.00), higher odds for providing all indicated stroke performance measures to patients compared with PAA-/PSC- hospitals. While both PSC certification and GWTG-Stroke PAA recognition identified hospitals providing higher conformity with care measures for patients hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke, PAA recognition was a more robust identifier of hospitals with better performance.
    Journal of the American Heart Association 08/2013; 2(5):e000451. DOI:10.1161/JAHA.113.000451 · 4.31 Impact Factor
Show more