Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for Heart Team decision-making in multivessel disease: the randomised, multicentre DECISION QFR trial.

BACKGROUND: Vessel-level physiological data derived from pressure wire measurements are one of the important determinant factors in the optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with multivessel disease (MVD). However, these may result in complications and a prolonged procedure time. AIMS: The feasibility of using the quantitative flow ratio (QFR), an angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR), in Heart Team discussions to determine the optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with MVD was investigated. METHODS: Two Heart Teams were randomly assigned either QFR- or FFR-based data of the included patients. They then discussed the optimal revascularisation mode (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) for each patient and made treatment recommendations. The primary endpoint of the trial was the level of agreement between the treatment recommendations of both teams as assessed using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The trial included 248 patients with MVD from 10 study sites. Cohen's kappa in the recommended revascularisation modes between the QFR and FFR approaches was 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI} : 0.62-0.83]. As for the revascularisation planning, agreements in the target vessels for PCI and CABG were substantial for both revascularisation modes (Cohen's kappa=0.72 [95% CI: 0.66-0.78] and 0.72 [95% CI: 0.66-0.78], respectively). The team assigned to the QFR approach provided consistent recommended revascularisation modes even after being made aware of the FFR data (Cohen's kappa=0.95 [95% CI:0.90-1.00]). CONCLUSIONS: QFR provided feasible physiological data in Heart Team discussions to determine the optimal revascularisation strategy for MVD. The QFR and FFR approaches agreed substantially in terms of treatment recommendations.

Quality indicators of palliative care for cardiovascular intensive care.

Healthcare providers working for cardiovascular intensive care often face challenges and they play an essential role in palliative care and end-of-life care because of the high mortality rates in the cardiac intensive care unit. Unfortunately, there are several barriers to integrating palliative care, cardiovascular care, and intensive care. The main reasons are as follows: cardiovascular disease-specific trajectories differ from cancer, there is uncertainty associated with treatments and diagnoses, aggressive treatments are necessary for symptom relief, and there is ethical dilemma regarding withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Quality indicators that can iterate the minimum requirements of each medical discipline could be used to overcome these barriers and effectively practice palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Unfortunately, there are no specific quality indicators for palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. A few indicators and their domains are useful for understanding current palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Among them, several domains, such as symptom palliation, patient- and family-centered decision-making, continuity of care, and support for health care providers that are particularly important in cardiovascular intensive care.Historically, the motivation for using quality indicators is to summarize mechanisms for external accountability and verification, and formative mechanisms for quality improvement. Practically, when using quality indicators, it is necessary to check structural indicators in each healthcare service line, screen palliative care at the first visit, and integrate palliative care teams with other professionals. Finally, we would like to state that quality indicators in cardiovascular intensive care could be useful as an educational tool for practicing palliative care, understanding the minimum requirements, and as a basic structure for future discussions.