In patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction, treatment with drug-eluting stents is associated with decreased 2-year mortality rates and a reduction in the need for repeat revascularization procedures as compared with treatment with bare-metal stents.

Background-Regardless of statistical methodology, public performance report cards must use the highest-quality validated data, preferably from a prospectively maintained clinical database. Using logistic regression and hierarchical models, we compared hospital cardiac surgery profiling results based on clinical data with those derived from contemporaneous administrative data. Methods and Results-Fiscal year 2003 isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery results based on an audited and validated Massachusetts clinical registry were compared with those derived from a contemporaneous state administrative database, the latter using the inclusion/exclusion criteria and risk model of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. There was a 27.4% disparity in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery volume (4440 clinical, 5657 administrative), a 0.83% difference in observed in-hospital mortality (2.05% versus 2.88%), corresponding differences in risk-adjusted mortality calculated by various statistical methodologies, and 1 hospital classified as an outlier only with the administrative data-based approach. The discrepancies in volumes and risk-adjusted mortality were most notable for higher-volume programs that presumably perform a higher proportion of combined procedures that were misclassified as isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in the administrative cohort. Subsequent analyses of a patient cohort common to both databases revealed the smoothing effect of hierarchical models, a 9% relative difference in mortality (2.21% versus 2.03%) resulting from nonstandardized mortality end points, and 1 hospital classified as an outlier using logistic regression but not using hierarchical regression. Conclusions-Cardiac surgery report cards using administrative data are problematic compared with those derived from audited and validated clinical data, primarily because of case misclassification and nonstandardized end points.

Background-Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the need for repeat revascularization, but their long-term safety relative to that of bare-metal stents (BMS) in general use remains uncertain. We sought to compare the clinical outcome of patients treated with DES with that of BMS. Methods and Results-All adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting between April 1, 2003, and September 30, 2004, at non-US government hospitals in Massachusetts were identified from a mandatory state database. Patients were classified from the index admission according to stent types used. Clinical and procedural risk factors were collected prospectively. Risk-adjusted mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization rate differences (DESϪBMS) were estimated through propensity score matching without replacement. A total of 11 556 patients were treated with DES, and 6237 were treated with BMS, with unadjusted 2-year mortality rates of 7.0% and 12.6%, respectively (PϽ0.0001). In 5549 DES patients matched to 5549 BMS patients, 2-year risk-adjusted mortality rates were 9.8% and 12.0%, respectively (Pϭ0.0002), whereas the respective rates for myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization were 8.3% versus 10.3% (Pϭ0.0005) and 11.0% versus 16.8% (PϽ0.0001). Conclusions-DES treatment was associated with lower rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization than BMS treatment in similar patients in a matched population-based study. Comprehensive follow-up in this inclusive population is warranted to identify whether similar safety and efficacy remain beyond 2 years.