SCAI expert consensus statement update on best practices for transradial angiography and intervention.

Transradial angiography and intervention continues to become increasingly common as an access site for coronary procedures. Since the first "Best Practices" paper in 2013, ongoing trials have shed further light onto the safest and most efficient methods to perform these procedures. Specifically, this document comments on the use of ultrasound to facilitate radial access, the role of ulnar artery access, the utility of non-invasive testing of collateral flow, strategies to prevent radial artery occlusion, radial access for primary PCI and topics that require further study.

Compared to femoral venous access, upper extremity right heart catheterization reduces time to ambulation: A single center experience.

OBJECTIVES: To determine ambulation times after right heart catheterization (RHC) via upper extremity access compared to femoral venous access. BACKGROUND: Transradial coronary angiography has been associated with shorter times to ambulation. We hypothesized that RHC from the upper extremity would be similarly associated with shorter ambulation times when compared to traditional femoral access. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 379 consecutive patients who underwent a variety of diagnostic and interventional left- and right-heart procedures through upper extremity and femoral access sites. RESULTS: The time to ambulation for RHC through the arm veins versus the femoral vein was lower (42.6 min ± 14.2 vs. 175.0 min ± 65.0, P < 0.001). Fluoroscopy times (8.5 min ± 6.8 vs. 12.8 min ± 8.4, P < 0.001) and radiation doses (64.1 Gy cm-2 ± 60.0 vs. 108.5 Gy cm-2 ± 71.6, P < 0.001) were reduced in the radial compared to femoral group, respectively. In multivariate analyses, upper arm access (P < 0.0001), lower heparin dose (P = 0.032), inpatient status (P = 0.01), and concurrent PCI (P = 0.03) were associated with shorter times to ambulation. CONCLUSIONS: Right heart catheterization from the upper extremity is strongly associated with shorter times to ambulation. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Patient access and 1-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention facilities with and without on-site cardiothoracic surgery: insights from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) program.

BACKGROUND: The safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at medical facilities without on-site cardiothoracic (CT) surgery has been established in clinical trials. However, the comparative effectiveness of this strategy in real-world practice, including impact on patient access and outcomes, is uncertain. The Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system has used this strategy, with strict quality oversight, since 2005, and can provide insight into this question. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 24,387 patients receiving PCI at VA facilities between October 2007 and September 2010, 6616 (27.1%) patients underwent PCI at facilities (n=18) without on-site CT surgery. Patient drive time (as a proxy for access), procedural complications, 1-year mortality, myocardial infarction, and rates of subsequent revascularization procedures were compared by facility. Results were stratified by procedural indication (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction versus non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction/unstable angina versus elective) and PCI volume. With the inclusion of PCI facilities without on-site CT surgery, median drive time for patients treated at those facilities decreased by 90.8 minutes (P<0.001). Procedural need for emergent coronary artery bypass graft and mortality rates were low and similar between facilities. Adjusted 1-year mortality and myocardial infarction rates were similar between facilities (hazard ratio in PCI facilities without relative to those with on-site CT surgery, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.2), and not modified by either PCI indication or PCI volume. Subsequent revascularization rates were higher at sites without on-site CT surgery facilities (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that providing PCI facilities without on-site CT surgery in an integrated health care system with quality oversight improves patient access without compromising procedural or 1-year outcomes.

Same-Day Discharge After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Current Perspectives and Strategies for Implementation.

IMPORTANCE: The evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has led to improved safety and efficacy, such that overnight observation can be avoided in some patients. We sought to provide a narrative review of the current literature regarding the outcomes of same-day discharge (SDD) PCI and to describe a framework for the development of an SDD program. OBSERVATIONS: A literature search of PubMed was performed for human studies on SDD PCI published in English from January 1, 1995, to July 31, 2015. We reviewed the studies between June and September 2015. After literature review, we included reports of randomized clinical trials, observational studies, meta-analyses guidelines, and consensus statements in a narrative review. Compared with overnight observation, there was no increase in adverse events (bleeding, repeat coronary procedures, death, or rehospitalization) among patients in these studies who were discharged on the same day of their PCI procedure. Same-day discharge was associated with significant cost savings and was preferred by patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The available evidence supports the safety of SDD in selected patients after PCI. Specific programmatic features are important to the successful implementation of SDD after PCI. Greater adoption of SDD programs after PCI has the potential to improve patient satisfaction, increase bed availability, and reduce hospital costs without increasing adverse patient outcomes.

Development of a Veterans Affairs hybrid operating room for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

IMPORTANCE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis. Developing a TAVR program with a custom-built hybrid operating room (HOR) outside the surgical operating room area poses unique challenges in Veterans Affairs (VA) institutions. OBJECTIVE: To present the process by which the San Francisco VA Medical Center developed a VA-approved TAVR program, in which an HOR exists in a cardiac catheterization laboratory, as a guideline for future programs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of each required approval process for developing an HOR in a cardiac catheterization laboratory in a VA designated for complex surgery. Participants included San Francisco VA Medical Center health care professionals and individuals responsible for new program initiation in VA institutions. EXPOSURES: External reviews by industry vendors, the VA Central Office, and the Office for Construction, Facilities, and Management and an internal Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The timeline for each process. RESULTS: Developing a TAVR program required vetting and approval from industry vendors, who provided training and expertise. Architectural plans for construction of the HOR began in 2010-2011, followed by approval from Edwards Lifesciences, Inc, in 2012 and fundamentals training on February 8 and 9, 2013. Following a pilot launch of the first VA TAVR program at the Houston VA Medical Center, subsequent programs were required to submit a plan to the VA Central Office for proposed restructuring of their clinical programs. After the San Francisco VA Medical Center proposal submission on February 3, 2013, a site visit consisting of a National Chief of Catheterization Laboratory Managers, a cardiac surgeon, and an interventional cardiologist with TAVR experience was conducted on April 12, 2013. During construction, HOR plans were inspected by the Office for Construction, Facilities, and Management followed by on-site inspection on August 8, 2013, to assess the adequacy of the HOR, newly built restricted corridors, equipment storage areas, and altered staff and patient flow patterns. Last, a Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis was performed to mitigate any negative effects of the HOR not being colocated in the surgical operating room area. Approval was then granted on November 13, 2013. Our first 10 TAVR cases were successfully completed as of April 2, 2014. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The primary factor for development of a successful TAVR program is integration of the heart valve team. Particular adaptations to the cardiac catheterization laboratory environment are required to accommodate an uncompromised HOR in which cardiac and vascular surgeons can be as comfortable as their interventional cardiology colleagues.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: establishing a comprehensive program model for hybrid cardiac catheterization laboratories in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Aortic valve disease, especially aortic stenosis, becomes progressively debilitating and carries a high mortality risk if it is categorized as severe and symptomatic (J Thorac Cardiovas Surg. 2012;144(3):e29-e84). In the past, the only treatment for aortic stenosis was surgical aortic valve replacement. Surgical treatment may require several hours of cardioplegia, and if the patient has comorbidities, such as renal failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, their operative mortality percentage increases.In 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure for patients who were deemed high risk or inoperative for the routine surgical aortic valve replacement surgery. More than 20, 000 TAVRs have been performed in patients worldwide since 2002 when Dr Alain Cribier performed the first-in-man TAVR (Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2012;105(3):145-152). The Edwards Lifesciences SAPIEN XT valve and the Medtronic CoreValve are commercially available.The clinical findings and economic statistic have supported the expansion of the TAVR procedure. However, there has been considerable controversy over where the procedure is to occur and who is directly responsible for directing the TAVR care. This debate has identified barriers to the implementation of a TAVR program. The operating rooms and a cardiac catheterization laboratory are underprepared for the hybrid valve replacement therapy. Because of the barriers identified, the Department of Veterans Affairs determined a need for a systematic approach to review the programs that applied for this structural heart disease program. A centralized team was developed to ensure room readiness and staff competency. The use of the Health Failure Mode and Effects Analysis can define high-risk clinical processes and conduct a hazard analysis. Worksheets can show potential failure modes and their probabilities, along with actions and outcome measures, team collaboration, extensive screening, and selection process. The TAVR program begins implementation with data entry with each case into CART-CL (Cardiovascular Assessment, Reporting and Tracking System for Cath Labs, Veteran Administration database for interventional cardiology procedures). If an untoward event occurs, within 24 hours the CART-CL Quality Assessment Team is activated to begin the review process. This provides real-time review and feedback to the local facility in an expeditious manner. Cardiac catheterization laboratories have been inundated with rapidly changing technological advances in the past decade. The era for structural heart repair is rapidly mobilizing from a surgical/operating room setting to a transcatheter/hybrid catheterization laboratory suite. The use of the new hybrid catheterization laboratories will continue to expand as the approval of future transcatheter therapies evolve. Editor's note: Due to the volume of important information presented in each table, only the first table is included in the print version of the article, however, all tables may be viewed in their entirety free of charge on the online version of this article: http://journals.lww.com/dccnjournal/pages/default.aspx.

Perceptions of advantages and barriers to radial-access percutaneous coronary intervention in VA cardiac catheterization laboratories.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Compared with trans-femoral percutaneous coronary intervention (TFI), trans-radial PCI (TRI) has a lower risk of bleeding, access site complications and hospital costs, and is preferred by patients. However, TRI accounts for a minority of PCIs in the US, and there is currently little research that explores why. METHODS/MATERIAL: We conducted a national survey in February 2013 to assess perceptions of TRI vs. TFI, and barriers to TRI adoption and implementation among interventional cardiologists employed by the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and linked these data to site-level TRI annual rates for 2013. RESULTS: We received 78 completed surveys (32% response rate). Respondents at sites that perform few or no TRIs identified increased radiation exposure as the greatest barrier while at sites that perform a high percentage of TRIs respondents identified the steep learning curve as the greatest barrier. Majorities of survey respondents at all sites rated TRI as superior on 5 of 7 criteria, including patient comfort and bleeding complications, but rated TFI as superior on procedure time and procedure success. CONCLUSIONS: Even interventional cardiologists at sites that perform few or any TRIs recognized the superiority of TRI for patient comfort and safety, but rated it inferior to TFI on procedure time and technical results. Interventional cardiologists at high-TRI labs rated TRI as equivalent on procedure time and technical results. Efforts to increase TRI adoption and implementation may be more successful if they emphasize that procedure times and technical results depend on achieving proficiency.

Percutaneously implanted left ventricular assist device: establishing a program from implant to intensive care unit.

Cardiogenic shock is a critical disease process that claims lives every year. A new device on the market allows 2.5 L of cardiac output through the heart to assist in patient stabilization while attempting treatment options such as percutaneous coronary intervention to open closed coronary arteries.