Public reporting of percutaneous coronary interventions

David Enze Wang, Rishi K Wadhera and Deepak L Bhatt
Med J Aust 2018; 209 (3): . || doi: 10.5694/mja18.00569
Published online: 6 August 2018

Despite enhancing transparency, public reporting may be leading to avoidance of life-saving procedures

In the United States, public reporting of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has been implemented in several states to enhance transparency and accountability, with the intent of improving patient outcomes. However, the impact of public reporting remains a controversial issue. A growing body of evidence suggests that public reporting has not improved patient outcomes. In fact, robust evidence shows that it has instead led to risk aversion. Public reporting of PCI stands at the crossroads of competing priorities. By the principle of beneficence — “doing good” — public reporting seeks to enhance transparency, but it may violate the principle of non-maleficence — “do no harm” — through the unintended consequence of avoidance of high risk patients.

  • 1 Harvard University, Boston, Mass, USA
  • 2 Heart and Vascular Center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass, USA


Competing interests:

Deepak Bhatt discloses the following relationships — advisory board: Cardax, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medscape Cardiology, Regado Biosciences; board of directors: Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care; chair: American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; data monitoring committees: Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Cleveland Clinic, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Population Health Research Institute; honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News,; Vice-Chair, ACC Accreditation Committee), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees), HMP Global (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), Population Health Research Institute (clinical trial steering committee), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees); other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); research funding: Abbott, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Eisai, Ethicon, Forest Laboratories, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lilly, Medtronic, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Synaptic, The Medicines Company; royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular intervention: a companion to Braunwald’s heart disease); site co-investigator: Biotronik, Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Svelte; trustee: American College of Cardiology; unfunded research: FlowCo, Merck, PLx Pharma, Takeda.

  • 1. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Cardiac care [website]. (viewed May 2018).
  • 2. Joynt KE, Blumenthal DM, Orav EJ, et al. Association of public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention with utilization and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2012; 308: 1460-1468.
  • 3. Waldo SW, McCabe JM, O’Brien C, et al. Association between public reporting of outcomes with procedural management and mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 1119-1126.
  • 4. Apolito RA, Greenberg MA, Menegus MA, et al. Impact of the New York state cardiac surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention reporting system on the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 2008; 155: 267-273.
  • 5. Fernandez G, Narins CR, Bruckel J, et al. Patient and physician perspectives on public reporting of mortality ratings for percutaneous coronary Intervention in New York State. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2017; 10: e003511.
  • 6. Blumenthal DM, Valsdottir LR, Zhao Y, et al. A survey of interventional cardiologists’ attitudes and beliefs about public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA Cardiol 2018; doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.1095 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 7. Barringhaus KG, Zelevinsky K, Lovett A, et al. Impact of independent data adjudication on hospital-specific estimates of risk-adjusted mortality following percutaneous coronary interventions in Massachusetts. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2011; 4: 92-98.
  • 8. Ketelaar NA, Faber MJ, Flottorp S, et al. Public release of performance data in changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, professionals or organisations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011: CD004538.
  • 9. McCabe JM, Waldo SW, Kennedy KF, Yeh RW. Treatment and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction complicated by shock after public reporting policy changes in New York. JAMA Cardiol 2016; 1: 648-654.
  • 10. Strom JB, McCabe JM, Waldo SW, et al. Management of patients with cardiac arrest complicating myocardial infarction in New York before and after public reporting policy changes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10: e004833.
  • 11. Wadhera RK, Anderson JD, Yeh RW. High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in public reporting states: the evidence, exclusion of critically ill patients, and implications. Curr Heart Fail Rep 2017; 14: 514-518.
  • 12. Wadhera RK, Joynt Maddox KE, Yeh RW, Bhatt DL. Public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes moving beyond the status quo. JAMA Cardiol 2018; doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.0947 [Epub ahead of print].
  • 13. Wadhera RK, Bhatt DL. Taking the “public” out of public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA 2017; 318: 1439-1440.
  • 14. Moscucci M, Rogers EK, Montoye C, et al. Association of a continuous quality improvement initiative with practice and outcome variations of contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions. Circulation 2006; 113: 814-822.
  • 15. Boyden TF, Joynt KE, McCoy L, et al. Collaborative quality improvement vs public reporting for percutaneous coronary intervention: a comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in New York vs Michigan. Am Heart J 2015; 170: 1227-1233.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.