Socioeconomic Distress Associated With Increased Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Over Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: The influence of socioeconomic determinants of health on choice of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for coronary artery disease is unknown. We hypothesized that higher Distressed Communities Index (DCI) scores, a comprehensive socioeconomic ranking by zip code, would be associated with more frequent PCI. METHODS: All patients undergoing isolated CABG or PCI in a regional American College of Cardiology CathPCI registry and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database (2018-2021) were assigned DCI scores (0 = no distress, 100 = severe distress) based on education level, poverty, unemployment, housing vacancies, median income, and business growth. Patients who presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or emergent procedures were excluded. The most distressed quintile (DCI ≥80) was compared with all other patients. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed the association between DCI and procedure type. RESULTS: A total of 23 223 patients underwent either PCI (n = 16 079) or CABG (n = 7144) for coronary artery disease across 28 centers during the study period. Before adjustment, high socioeconomic distress occurred more frequently among CABG patients (DCI ≥80, 12.4% vs 8.42%; P < .001). After multivariable adjustment, high socioeconomic distress was associated with greater odds of receiving PCI, relative to CABG (odds ratio 1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49; P = .007). High socioeconomic distress was significantly associated with postprocedural mortality (odds ratio 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26; P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: High socioeconomic distress is associated with greater risk-adjusted odds of receiving PCI, relative to CABG, as well as higher postprocedural mortality. Targeted resource allocation in high DCI areas may help eliminate barriers to CABG.

Appropriateness of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis Is Increasing.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement led to the development of appropriate use criteria (AUC) for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis in 2017. This study hypothesized that appropriateness of SAVR improved after publication of AUC. METHODS: All patients undergoing isolated SAVR for severe aortic stenosis in a regional cardiac surgical quality collaborative were evaluated using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (2011-2021). After excluding endocarditis and emergency cases, appropriateness of SAVR (rarely appropriate, may be appropriate, or appropriate) was assigned to patients by using established criteria. The relationship of appropriateness with publication of AUC was assessed, as was variation in appropriateness over time and by center. RESULTS: Of 3035 patients across 17 centers, 106 (3.5%) underwent SAVR for an indication identified as rarely appropriate or may be appropriate. Patients who underwent SAVR for rarely or may be appropriate indications were significantly more likely to experience operative mortality (5.7% vs 1.6%, P = .001) as well as major morbidity (21.7% vs 10.5%, P < .001). Performance of rarely or may be appropriate SAVR significantly decreased over time (slope -0.51%/year, P trend < .001), and it was decreased after the release of the AUC (before release, 3.83% vs after release, 2.06%; P = .036). Substantial interhospital variation in appropriateness was observed (range of may be or rarely appropriate SAVR, 0%-10%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of isolated SAVR for aortic stenosis was appropriate according to the 2017 AUC. Appropriateness improved after publication of AUC, and this improvement was associated with a significant reduction of major morbidity and mortality.

ACC/AHA/ASE/HRS/ISACHD/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/SOPE 2020 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging During the Follow-Up Care of Patients With Congenital Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee and Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Pediatric Echocardiography.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) collaborated with the American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Pediatric Echocardiography to develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for multimodality imaging during the follow-up care of patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). This is the first AUC to address cardiac imaging in adult and pediatric patients with established CHD. A number of common patient scenarios (also termed "indications") and associated assumptions and definitions were developed using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of CHD.1 The indications relate primarily to evaluation before and after cardiac surgery or catheter-based intervention, and they address routine surveillance as well as evaluation of new-onset signs or symptoms. The writing group developed 324 clinical indications, which they separated into 19 tables according to the type of cardiac lesion. Noninvasive cardiac imaging modalities that could potentially be used for these indications were incorporated into the tables, resulting in a total of 1,035 unique scenarios. These scenarios were presented to a separate, independent panel for rating, with each being scored on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 to 3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4 to 6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7 to 9 as "Appropriate." Forty-four percent of the scenarios were rated as Appropriate, 39% as May Be Appropriate, and 17% as Rarely Appropriate. This AUC document will provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with established CHD by identifying the reasonable imaging modality options available for evaluation and surveillance of such patients. It will also serve as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of Rarely Appropriate tests in clinical practice.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2019 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging in the Assessment of Cardiac Structure and Function in Nonvalvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This document is the second of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The first document1 addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas this document addresses this topic with regard to structural (nonvalvular) heart disease. While dealing with different subjects, the 2 documents do share a common structure and feature some clinical overlap. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of structural and valvular heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities. Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the 102 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations in which diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging in Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This document is 1 of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. This document addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas the second, companion document addresses this topic with regard to structural heart disease. Although there is clinical overlap, the documents addressing valvular and structural heart disease are published separately, albeit with a common structure. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of valvular and structural heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities. Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the 92 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations where diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/EACTS/HVS/SCA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology collaborated with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons to develop and evaluate Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This is the first AUC to address the topic of AS and its treatment options, including surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A number of common patient scenarios experienced in daily practice were developed along with assumptions and definitions for those scenarios, which were all created using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of AS. The 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines(1) and its 2017 focused update paper (2) were used as the primary guiding references in developing these indications. The writing group identified 95 clinical scenarios based on patient symptoms and clinical presentation, and up to 6 potential treatment options for those patients. A separate, independent rating panel was asked to score each indication from 1 to 9, with 1-3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4-6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7-9 as "Appropriate." After considering factors such as symptom status, left ventricular (LV) function, surgical risk, and the presence of concomitant coronary or other valve disease, the rating panel determined that either SAVR or TAVR is Appropriate in most patients with symptomatic AS at intermediate or high surgical risk; however, situations commonly arise in clinical practice in which the indications for SAVR or TAVR are less clear, including situations in which 1 form of valve replacement would appear reasonable when the other is less so, as do other circumstances in which neither intervention is the suitable treatment option. The purpose of this AUC is to provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with severe AS by identifying the reasonable treatment and intervention options available based on the myriad clinical scenarios with which patients present. This AUC document also serves as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of rarely appropriate interventions in clinical practice.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes and stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing SIHD and acute coronary syndromes individually. This document presents the AUC for SIHD.Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice. These scenarios included information on symptom status; risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing; coronary disease burden; and, in some scenarios, fractional flow reserve testing, presence or absence of diabetes, and SYNTAX score. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt were affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization.A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with high symptom burden, high-risk features, and high coronary disease burden, as well as in patients receiving antianginal therapy, are deemed appropriate. Additionally, scenarios assessing the appropriateness of revascularization before kidney transplantation or transcatheter valve therapy are now rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non­ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

Public reporting of clinical quality data: an update for cardiovascular specialists.

Public reporting of hospital and individual provider quality of care measures is not a new concept. In the United States, the first national public reports of hospital mortality data occurred in 1986, and detailed physician-level data for cardiac surgery are now reported in 4 states. The development of the "Hospital Compare," and more recently, the "Physician Compare" websites has further expanded public reporting for hospitals and providers. Several professional organizations, including the American Medical Association, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American College of Cardiology, have published policy statements articulating key principles to guide the public reporting process. Despite the rapid proliferation of public reporting efforts, more research is needed to better define meaningful measures to report and fully understand the impact of public reporting on healthcare delivery.

A contemporary view of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: a report from the CathPCI Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2010 through June 2011.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to provide a report to the public of data from the CathPCI Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. BACKGROUND: The CathPCI Registry collects data from approximately 85% of the cardiac catheterization laboratories in the United States. METHODS: Data were summarized for 6 consecutive calendar quarters beginning January 1, 2010, and ending June 30, 2011. This report includes 1,110,150 patients undergoing only diagnostic cardiac catheterization and 941,248 undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). RESULTS: Some notable findings include, for example, that on-site cardiac surgery was not available in 83% of facilities performing fewer than 200 PCIs annually, with these facilities representing 32.6% of the facilities reporting, but performing only 12.4% of the PCIs in this data sample. Patients 65 years of age or older represented 38.7% of those undergoing PCI, with 12.3% being 80 years of age or older. Almost 80% of PCI patients were overweight (body mass index ≥25 kg/m(2)), 80% had dyslipidemia, and 27.6% were current or recent smokers. Among patients undergoing elective PCI, 52% underwent a stress study before the procedure, with stress myocardial perfusion being used most frequently. Calcium scores and coronary computed tomography angiography were used very infrequently (<3%) before diagnostic or PCI procedures. Radial artery access was used in 8.3% of diagnostic and 6.9% of PCI procedures. Primary PCI was performed with a median door-to-balloon time of 64.5 min for nontransfer patients and 121 min for transfer patients. In-hospital risk-adjusted mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients was 5.2% in this sample. CONCLUSIONS: Data from the CathPCI Registry provide a contemporary view of the current practice of invasive cardiology in the United States.