Resource and Infrastructure-Appropriate Management of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The 143 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) of the world constitute 80% of the world's population or roughly 5.86 billion people with much variation in geography, culture, literacy, financial resources, access to health care, insurance penetration, and healthcare regulation. Unfortunately, their burden of cardiovascular disease in general and acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in particular is increasing at an unprecedented rate. Compounding the problem, outcomes remain suboptimal because of a lack of awareness and a severe paucity of resources. Guideline-based treatment has dramatically improved the outcomes of STEMI in high-income countries. However, no such focused recommendations exist for LMICs, and the unique challenges in LMICs make directly implementing Western guidelines unfeasible. Thus, structured solutions tailored to their individual, local needs, and resources are a vital need. With this in mind, a multicountry collaboration of investigators interested in LMIC STEMI care have tried to create a consensus document that extracts transferable elements from Western guidelines and couples them with local realities gathered from expert experience. It outlines general operating principles for LMICs focused best practices and is intended to create the broad outlines of implementable, resource-appropriate paradigms for management of STEMI in LMICs. Although this document is focused primarily on governments and organizations involved with improvement in STEMI care in LMICs, it also provides some specific targeted information for the frontline clinicians to allow standardized care pathways and improved outcomes.

Comparison of clinical interpretation with visual assessment and quantitative coronary angiography in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice: the Assessing Angiography (A2) project.

BACKGROUND: Studies conducted decades ago described substantial disagreement and errors in physicians' angiographic interpretation of coronary stenosis severity. Despite the potential implications of such findings, no large-scale efforts to measure or improve clinical interpretation were subsequently undertaken. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical interpretation of stenosis severity in coronary lesions with an independent assessment using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 175 randomly selected patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention at 7 US hospitals in 2011. To assess agreement, we calculated mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA and a Cohen weighted κ statistic. Of 216 treated lesions, median percent diameter stenosis was 80.0% (quartiles 1 and 3, 80.0% and 90.0%), with 213 (98.6%) assessed as ≥70%. Mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA was 8.2±8.4%, reflecting an average higher percent diameter stenosis by clinical interpretation (P<0.001). A weighted κ of 0.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.36) was found between the 2 measurements. Of 213 lesions considered ≥70% by clinical interpretation, 56 (26.3%) were <70% by QCA, although none were <50%. Differences between the 2 measurements were largest for intermediate lesions by QCA (50% to <70%), with variation existing across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians tended to assess coronary lesions treated with percutaneous coronary intervention as more severe than measurements by QCA. Almost all treated lesions were ≥70% by clinical interpretation, whereas approximately one quarter were <70% by QCA. These findings suggest opportunities to improve clinical interpretation of coronary angiography.

A statewide collaborative initiative to improve the quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction and heart failure.

BACKGROUND: To enhance quality improvement, we created a unique statewide collaboration among 3 organizations: the Virginia Health Quality Center (Virginia's Medicare Quality Improvement Organization), the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association. The goal was to improve discharge measures for acute myocardial infarction and heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 2004, 29 hospitals participated in the collaborative initiative. Using Medicare data submitted from 2004 through the second quarter of 2006, we analyzed adherence to individual discharge measures and all-or-none appropriate care measures for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and both. To control for differences in hospital characteristics, we were able to match 21 of the participating hospitals with 21 similar nonparticipating hospitals. In this paired analysis, the total appropriate care measure increased from 61% to 77% in participating hospitals compared with an increase from 51% to 60% in nonparticipating hospitals (P<0.0001). A generalized linear mixed model examining the full data set at the patient level failed to show a clear advantage among participating hospitals. Participating hospitals had higher baseline rates for most quality measures, suggesting a possible effect of a prior collaborative. Further analysis of only hospitals that participated in a prior collaborative showed that participants in the current collaborative initiative had higher rates of improvement for 7 of 10 quality measures and appropriate care measures for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or both (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We report a unique collaboration of a Medicare Quality Improvement Organization and 2 national organizations to address quality of care for acute myocardial infarction and heart failure. A composite measure of quality (the total appropriate care measure) improved more in the participating hospitals during the timeframe of the intervention, although the greater improvement in this and other measures in the participating hospitals appeared to be dependent on participation in a prior collaborative initiative.