Relationship of Provider and Practice Volume to Performance Measure Adherence for Coronary Artery Disease, Heart Failure, and Atrial Fibrillation Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

Background There is a reported association between high clinical volume and improved outcomes. Whether this relationship is true for outpatients with coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), and atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unknown. Methods and Results Using the PINNACLE Registry (2009-2012), average monthly provider and practice volumes were calculated for CAD, HF, and AF. Adherence with 4 American Heart Association CAD, 2 HF, and 1 AF performance measure were assessed at the most recent encounter for each patient. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between provider and practice volume and performance on eligible quality measures. Data incorporated patients from 1094 providers at 71 practices (practice level analyses n=654 535; provider level analyses n=529 938). Median monthly provider volumes were 79 (interquartile range [IQR], 51-117) for CAD, 27 (16-45) for HF, and 37 (24-54) for AF. Median monthly practice volumes were 923 (IQR, 476-1455) for CAD, 311 (145-657) for HF, and 459 (185-720) for AF. Overall, 55% of patients met all CAD measures, 72% met all HF measures, and 58% met the AF measure. There was no definite relationship between practice volume and concordance for CAD, AF, or HF (P=0.56, 0.52, and 0.79, respectively). In contrast, higher provider volume was associated with increased concordance for CAD and AF performance measures (P<0.001 for both), but not for HF (P=0.36). Conclusions In the PINNACLE registry, performance was modest and variable. Higher provider volume was positively associated with quality, whereas practice volume was not.