Failure to Rescue as an Outcome Metric for Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Programs: Analysis of Data From the IMPACT Registry

Abstract

Background

Risk‐adjusted adverse event ( AE) rates have been used to measure the quality of pediatric and congenital cardiac catheterization laboratories. In other settings, failure to rescue ( FTR) has demonstrated utility as a quality metric.

Methods and Results

A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed using data from the IMPACT (Improving Adult and Congenital Treatment) Registry between January 2010 and December 2016. A modified FTR metric was developed for pediatric and congenital cardiac catheterization laboratories and then compared with pooled AEs. The associations between patient‐ and hospital‐level factors and outcomes were evaluated using hierarchical logistic regression models. Hospital risk standardized ratios were then calculated. Rankings of risk standardized ratios for each outcome were compared to determine whether AEs and FTR identified the same high‐ and low‐performing centers. During the study period, 77 580 catheterizations were performed at 91 hospitals. Higher annual hospital catheterization volume was associated with lower odds of FTR (odds ratio: 0.68 per 300 cases; P=0.0003). No association was seen between catheterization volume and odds of AEs. Odds of AEs were instead associated with patient‐ and procedure‐level factors. There was no correlation between risk standardized ratio ranks for FTR and pooled AEs ( P=0.46). Hospital ranks by catheterization volume and FTR were associated ( r=−0.28, P=0.01) with the largest volume hospitals having the lowest risk of FTR.

Conclusions

In contrast to AEs, FTR was not strongly associated with patient‐ and procedure‐level factors and was significantly associated with pediatric and congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory volume. Hospital rankings based on FTR and AEs were not significantly correlated. We conclude that FTR is a complementary measure of catheterization laboratory quality and should be included in future research and quality‐improvement projects.