Interventional cardiologists' perceptions of percutaneous coronary intervention quality measurement and feedback.

BACKGROUND: Interventional cardiologists receive feedback on their clinical care from a variety of sources including registry-based quality measures, case conferences, and informal peer interactions. However, the impact of this feedback on clinical care is unclear. METHODS: We interviewed interventional cardiologists regarding the use of feedback to improve their care of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients. Interviews were assessed with template analysis using deductive and inductive techniques. RESULTS: Among 20 interventional cardiologists from private, academic, and Department of Veterans Affairs practice, 85% were male, 75% performed at least 100 PCIs annually, and 55% were in practice for 5 years or more. All reported receiving feedback on their practice, including formal quality measures and peer learning activities. Many respondents were critical of quality measure reporting, citing lack of trust in outcomes measures and poor applicability to clinical care. Some respondents reported the use of process measures such as contrast volume and fluoroscopy time for benchmarking their performance. Case conferences and informal peer feedback were perceived as timelier and more impactful on clinical care. Respondents identified facilitators of successful feedback interventions including transparent processes, respectful and reciprocal peer relationships, and integration of feedback into collective goals. Hierarchy and competitive environments inhibited useful feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial resources dedicated to performance measurement and feedback for PCI, interventional cardiologists perceive existing quality measures to be of only modest value for improving clinical care. Catherization laboratories should seek to integrate quality measures into a holistic quality program that emphasizes peer learning, collective goals and mutual respect.

Association of Coronary Anatomical Complexity With Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous or Surgical Revascularization in the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking Program.

Importance: Anatomical scoring systems for coronary artery disease, such as the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score, are well established tools for understanding patient risk. However, they are cumbersome to compute manually for large data sets, limiting their use across broad and varied cohorts. Objective: To adapt an anatomical scoring system for use with registry data, allowing facile and automatic calculation of scores and association with clinical outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous or surgical revascularization. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional observational cohort study involved procedures performed in all cardiac catheterization laboratories in the largest integrated health care system in the United States, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System. Patients undergoing coronary angiography in the VA Healthcare System followed by percutaneous or surgical revascularization within 90 days were observed and data were analyzed from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: An anatomical scoring system for coronary artery disease complexity before revascularization was simplified and adapted to data from the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. The adjusted association between quantified anatomical complexity and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization, was assessed for patients undergoing percutaneous or surgical revascularization. Results: A total of 50 226 patients (49 359 men [98.3%]; mean [SD] age, 66 [9] years) underwent revascularization during the study period, with 34 322 undergoing PCI and 15 904 undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). After adjustment, the highest tertile of anatomical complexity was associated with increased hazard of MACCEs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.12; 95% CI, 2.01-2.23). In contrast, the highest tertile of anatomical complexity among patients undergoing CABG was not independently associated with overall MACCEs (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17), and only repeat revascularization was associated with increasing complexity (adjusted HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.70) in this subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that an automatically computed score assessing anatomical complexity can be used to assess longitudinal risk for patients undergoing revascularization. This simplified scoring system appears to be an alternative tool for understanding longitudinal risk across large data sets.

A quality framework for the role of invasive, non-interventional cardiologists in the present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory: A multidisciplinary SCAI/HFSA expert consensus statement.

The present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) is home to varied practitioners who perform both diagnostic, interventional, and complex invasive procedures. Invasive, non-interventional cardiologists are performing a significant proportion of the work as the CCL environment has evolved. This not only includes those who perform diagnostic-only cardiac catheterization but also heart failure specialists who may be involved in hemodynamic assessment and in mechanical circulatory support and pulmonary hypertension specialists and transplant cardiologists. As such, the training background of those who work in the CCL is varied. While most quality metrics in the CCL are directed towards evaluation of patients who undergo traditional interventional procedures, there has not been a focus upon providing these invasive, noninterventional cardiologists, hospital/CCL administrators, and CCL directors a platform for quality metrics. This document focuses on benchmarking quality for the invasive, noninterventional practice, providing this physician community with guidance towards a patient-centered approach to care, and offering tools to the invasive, noninterventionalists to help their professional growth. This consensus statement aims to establish a foundation upon which the invasive, noninterventional cardiologists can thrive in the CCL environment and work collaboratively with their interventional colleagues while ensuring that the highest quality of care is being delivered to all patients.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the AABB: Red Blood Cell Transfusion Thresholds and Storage.

Importance: More than 100 million units of blood are collected worldwide each year, yet the indication for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and the optimal length of RBC storage prior to transfusion are uncertain. Objective: To provide recommendations for the target hemoglobin level for RBC transfusion among hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable and the length of time RBCs should be stored prior to transfusion. Evidence Review: Reference librarians conducted a literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating hemoglobin thresholds for RBC transfusion (1950-May 2016) and RBC storage duration (1948-May 2016) without language restrictions. The results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. For RBC transfusion thresholds, 31 RCTs included 12 587 participants and compared restrictive thresholds (transfusion not indicated until the hemoglobin level is 7-8 g/dL) with liberal thresholds (transfusion not indicated until the hemoglobin level is 9-10 g/dL). The summary estimates across trials demonstrated that restrictive RBC transfusion thresholds were not associated with higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes, including 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, rebleeding, pneumonia, or thromboembolism. For RBC storage duration, 13 RCTs included 5515 participants randomly allocated to receive fresher blood or standard-issue blood. These RCTs demonstrated that fresher blood did not improve clinical outcomes. Findings: It is good practice to consider the hemoglobin level, the overall clinical context, patient preferences, and alternative therapies when making transfusion decisions regarding an individual patient. Recommendation 1: a restrictive RBC transfusion threshold in which the transfusion is not indicated until the hemoglobin level is 7 g/dL is recommended for hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable, including critically ill patients, rather than when the hemoglobin level is 10 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). A restrictive RBC transfusion threshold of 8 g/dL is recommended for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, cardiac surgery, and those with preexisting cardiovascular disease (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). The restrictive transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL is likely comparable with 8 g/dL, but RCT evidence is not available for all patient categories. These recommendations do not apply to patients with acute coronary syndrome, severe thrombocytopenia (patients treated for hematological or oncological reasons who are at risk of bleeding), and chronic transfusion-dependent anemia (not recommended due to insufficient evidence). Recommendation 2: patients, including neonates, should receive RBC units selected at any point within their licensed dating period (standard issue) rather than limiting patients to transfusion of only fresh (storage length: <10 days) RBC units (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Conclusions and Relevance: Research in RBC transfusion medicine has significantly advanced the science in recent years and provides high-quality evidence to inform guidelines. A restrictive transfusion threshold is safe in most clinical settings and the current blood banking practices of using standard-issue blood should be continued.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Native Coronary Arteries Versus Bypass Grafts in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the frequency, associations, and outcomes of native coronary artery versus bypass graft percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) integrated health care system. BACKGROUND: Patients with prior CABG surgery often undergo PCI, but the association between PCI target vessel and short- and long-term outcomes has received limited study. METHODS: A national cohort of 11,118 veterans with prior CABG who underwent PCI between October 2005 and September 2013 at 67 VA hospitals was examined, and the outcomes of patients who underwent native coronary versus bypass graft PCI were compared. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to adjust for correlation between patients within hospitals. Cox regressions were modeled for each outcome to determine the variables with significant hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: During the study period, patients with prior CABG represented 18.5% of all patients undergoing PCI (11,118 of 60,171). The PCI target vessel was a native coronary artery in 73.4% and a bypass graft in 26.6%: 25.0% in a saphenous vein graft and 1.5% in an arterial graft. Compared with patients undergoing native coronary artery PCI, those undergoing bypass graft PCI had higher risk characteristics and more procedure-related complications. During a median follow-up period of 3.11 years, bypass graft PCI was associated with significantly higher mortality (adjusted HR: 1.30; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.42), myocardial infarction (adjusted HR: 1.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.43 to 1.82), and repeat revascularization (adjusted HR: 1.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.50 to 1.71). CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort of veterans, almost three-quarters of PCIs performed in patients with prior CABG involved native coronary artery lesions. Compared with native coronary PCI, bypass graft PCI was significantly associated with higher incidence of short- and long-term major adverse events, including more than double the rate of in-hospital mortality.

Safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein bypass graft percutaneous coronary interventions: insights from the Veterans Affairs CART program.

BACKGROUND: Stenosis of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is common and often requires percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for treatment. However, data for the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in SVG-PCI are unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the association between DES versus BMS used during SVG PCI and clinical outcomes in the national Veterans Affairs integrated healthcare system. METHODS: We studied a national cohort of 2,471 post-CABG veterans undergoing SVG-PCI between 2008 and 2011 at all Veterans Affairs hospitals and compared clinical outcomes of between those receiving DES and BMS. Clinical outcomes included procedural complications, myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality. Comparisons were made in a propensity-matched cohort using Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: DES were used in 1,549 SVG-PCI patients (63%) and the use of DES increased progressively with each calendar year (50% in 2008 to 69% in 2011). Incidence of procedural complications was low and comparable in both groups (2.8% among BMS vs. 2.3% among DES patients; p = 0.54). During long-term (>2 years) follow-up, use of DES was associated with lower mortality than BMS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 0.89) and similar rates of MI (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.24) in the propensity-matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort of veterans, we observed widespread and increasing use of DES during SVG-PCI. In long-term follow-up, compared with BMS, DES use was safe and effective in SVG-PCI patients.