国家神经系统疾病临床医学研究中心数据管理与共享系统
Data Management And Sharing System of China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases
Adherence to Stroke Care Performance Measures in Different Regions in China, 2015-2019: Evidence From the Chinese Stroke Center Alliance
基本信息
- 负责人：Suxi Zheng,Tong Zhang
- 数据来源： CSCA
- 论文编号：CSCA20210026
- 发表时间：2022-08-02
2022-08-02
已发表文章
主要研究背景及目的
A noticeable geographical variation in stroke prevalence was observed and was evolving over time in China. The adherence to guideline-recommended ischemic stroke performance metrics is pivotal to stroke patients. It is acknowledged that the overall quality of care has improved over time. However, the regional difference of those performance metrics has remained unanswered yet.
方法
We conducted a retrospective observational study using data from the Chinese Stroke Center Alliance from August 2015 to August 2019. The primary outcome was hospital personnel adherence to 11 individual guideline-recommended treatments. The coprimary outcomes included 2 summary measures: a composite score (range, 0 [nonadherence] to 1 [perfect adherence]) and an all-or-none binary outcome for adherence to evidence-based stroke. Regional disparities were assessed according to the stroke belt division and the economic development division and the interaction between these 2 divisions. Multivariate regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to analyze the outcomes.
结论
Stroke care performance measures differed across regions, along the stroke belt division, and the economic development division. The overall quality of care in the non-stroke belt regions was higher than that in the stroke belt regions. The 2 divisions had interaction effects on several individual measures.
主要结果
This study included 838,229 patients with acute ischemic stroke from 1,473 hospitals. The overall quality of care in the nonbelt regions (southern China) was higher than in the stroke belt regions (northern China), as reflected by a higher composite score (0.77 vs 0.75; adjusted odds ratio 1.03 [95% CI 1.02-1.04]; p < 0.001) and a higher all-or-none measure (25.5% vs 22.0%; 1.32 [1.17-1.49], p < 0.001). Patients in the East and Central had higher odds of using intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (East: 1.81 [95% CI 1.51-2.18], p < 0.001; Central: 1.57 [95% CI 1.26-1.95], p < 0.001), early antithrombotic medications (East: 1.77 [1.49-2.11], p < 0.001; Central: 1.37 [1.12-1.66], p < 0.001), lipid-lowering medications (East: 1.29 [1.08-1.53], p < 0.001), and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis (East: 1.28 [1.08-1.50], p = 0.003) compared with those in the West. Patients in the nonbelt regions had higher odds of getting dysphagia screening (1.82 [1.55-2.13], p < 0.001) and rehabilitation assessment (which though varied among different economic development levels). Reflected by significant interaction effects, for patients in the East, those in the nonbelt regions had greater odds of receiving anticoagulation (1.62 [1.34-1.96]; p < 0.001) but lower odds of receiving antithrombotic (0.63 [0.52-0.77]; p < 0.001) and antidiabetic medications (0.87 [0.77-0.99]; p = 0.03); for patients in the West, those in the nonbelt regions were less likely to receive antihypertensive (0.64 [0.46-0.88]; p = 0.004) and antidiabetic (0.66 [0.54-0.81]; p < 0.001) medications.