Growth in percutaneous coronary intervention capacity relative to population and disease prevalence.

James R. Langabeer, Timothy D. Henry, Dean J. Kereiakes, Jami Dellifraine, Jamie Emert, Zheng Wang, Leilani Stuart, Richard King, Wendy Segrest, Peter Moyer, James G. Jollis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

70 Scopus citations


The access to and growth of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been fully explored with regard to geographic equity and need. Economic factors and timely access to primary PCI provide the impetus for growth in PCI centers, and this is balanced by volume standards and the benefits of regionalized care. Geospatial and statistical analyses were used to model capacity, growth, and access of PCI hospitals relative to population density and myocardial infarction (MI) prevalence at the state level. Longitudinal data were obtained for 2003-2011 from the American Hospital Association, the U.S. Census, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with geographical modeling to map PCI locations. The number of PCI centers has grown 21.2% over the last 8 years, with 39% of all hospitals having interventional cardiology capabilities. During the same time, the US population has grown 8.3%, from 217 million to 235 million, and MI prevalence rates have decreased from 4.0% to 3.7%. The most densely concentrated states have a ratio of 8.1 to 12.1 PCI facilities per million of population with significant variability in both MI prevalence and average distance between PCI facilities. Over the last decade, the growth rate for PCI centers is 1.5× that of the population growth, while MI prevalence is decreasing. This has created geographic imbalances and access barriers with excess PCI centers relative to need in some regions and inadequate access in others.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e000370
JournalJournal of the American Heart Association
Issue number6
StatePublished - 2013
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Growth in percutaneous coronary intervention capacity relative to population and disease prevalence.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this