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.

Analysis of Closed Claims Among All Medical Specialties: Importance of Communication and Other Non-Clinical Contributing Factors.

Objective: Medical malpractice claims represent patient dissatisfaction of care delivered by their healthcare provider. Evaluation of contributing factors (CFs) associated with claims provides important information to optimize the patient-provider relationship. Study Design: A total of 21,101 closed claims with 54,479 CFs (2.2 contributing factors per claim) from a large medical professional liability coverage provider were analyzed from 2010 to 2019. Results: Four clinical CFs (technical performance, management of therapy, patient assessment, and patient factors) and four nonclinical CFs (communication between providers and patient, communication among providers, failure or delay in obtaining a consult, and insufficient documentation) were identified >1,500 times. Nonclinical CFs increased as a percentage from 50% in the first part of the study period to 54% in the second part of the study period (p < 0.01), and were more frequent in cases associated with indemnity when compared to clinical CFs (Nonclinical: 57% vs 43%; p < 0.001). Poor communication as a CF increased steadily during the study period (3-year average; 2010-2012: 777 CF/year vs 2017-2019: 1207 CF/year; p < 0.001). In claims associated with high severity injury, poor communication among providers was more significant than poor communication between the provider and patient (63% vs 29%; p < 0.001), mainly due to failure to convey the severity of the patient's condition. For non-surgical specialties except psychiatry, communication was the highest CF and the second or third CF for psychiatry or surgical specialties. Discussion: Clinical and nonclinical CFs are equally important for malpractice claims. Communications issues are particularly important regardless of specialty. While focusing on clinical quality is important, implementing strategies that account for nonclinical issues, with a particular focus on communication, would have significant benefits particularly in an environment of increased consolidation of healthcare delivery systems.

Evaluating Performance of ChatGPT on MKSAP Cardiology Board Review Questions.

Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a natural language processing tool created by OpenAI. Much of the discussion regarding artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is the ability of the language to enhance medical practice, improve efficiency and decrease errors. The objective of this study was to analyze the ability of ChatGPT to answer board-style cardiovascular medicine questions by using the Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program (MKSAP).The study evaluated the performance of ChatGPT (versions 3.5 and 4), alongside internal medicine residents and internal medicine and cardiology attendings, in answering 98 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from the Cardiovascular Medicine Chapter of MKSAP. ChatGPT-4 demonstrated an accuracy of 74.5 %, comparable to internal medicine (IM) intern (63.3 %), senior resident (63.3 %), internal medicine attending physician (62.2 %), and ChatGPT-3.5 (64.3 %) but significantly lower than cardiology attending physician (85.7 %). Subcategory analysis revealed no statistical difference between ChatGPT and physicians, except in valvular heart disease where cardiology attending outperformed ChatGPT (p = 0.031) for version 3.5, and for heart failure (p = 0.046) where ChatGPT-4 outperformed senior resident. While ChatGPT shows promise in certain subcategories, in order to establish AI as a reliable educational tool for medical professionals, performance of ChatGPT will likely need to surpass the accuracy of instructors, ideally achieving the near-perfect score on posed questions.

Essential nonclinical competencies for cardiovascular specialists imperatives for training.

C. Richard (Dick) Conti was a pioneer in innovation…not only in clinical and academic fields, but also in the exposure of academicians, clinicians, and trainees to various environments for expansion of their knowledge base…and world view. In an evolving environment of systems of medical care, engagement in management and planning by physicians and all members of the care team is essential to ensure quality for patients and to develop processes that work effectively for practitioners. This is particularly true in cardiovascular disease, where the majority of physicians are now part of integrated healthcare systems. Such integration can have advantages, but can also lead to a perceived and real loss of professional control over the practice of medicine. As health systems grow, even those practitioners who remain "independent" require the ability to actively engage in system programs, processes, and planning. Tools to effectively contribute to such skill sets are not commonly part of formal training. This communication describes the needs for training in nonclinical competencies, some current resources, and a model for formal integration of such instruction into cardiology fellowship training. An approach such as this honors the memory of Dick Conti, as an educator and leader who continuously looked for avenues to improve the practice of cardiovascular medicine.

Coronary CTA plaque volume severity stages according to invasive coronary angiography and FFR.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic plaque characterization by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) enables quantification of coronary artery disease (CAD) burden and type, which has been demonstrated as the strongest discriminant of future risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). To date, there are no clinically useful thresholds to assist with understanding a patient's disease burden and guide diagnosis and management, as there exists with coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. The purpose of this manuscript is to establish clinically relevant plaque stages and thresholds based on evidence from invasive angiographic stenosis (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) data. METHODS: 303 patients underwent CCTA prior to ICA and FFR for an AHA/ACC clinical indication. Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) was performed for total plaque volume (TPV, mm3) and percent atheroma volume (PAV, %). We segmented atherosclerosis by composition for low-density non-calcified plaque (LD-NCP), non-calcified plaque (NCP), and calcified plaque (CP). ICAs were evaluated by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) for all coronary segments for % diameter stenosis. The relationship of atherosclerotic plaque burden and composition by QCT to ICA stenosis extent and severity by QCA and presence of ischemia by FFR was assessed to develop 4 distinct disease stages. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 64.4 â€‹± â€‹10.2 years; 71% male. At the 50% QCA stenosis threshold, QCT revealed a mean PAV of 9.7 (±8.2)% and TPV of 436 (±444.9)mm3 for those with non-obstructive CAD; PAV of 11.7 (±8.0)% and TPV of 549.3 (±408.3) mm3 for 1 vessel disease (1VD), PAV of 17.8 (±9.8)% and TPV of 838.9 (±550.7) mm3 for 2VD, and PAV of 19.2 (±8.2)% and TPV of 799.9 (±357.4) mm3 for 3VD/left main disease (LMD). Non-ischemic patients (FFR >0.8) had a mean PAV of 9.2 (±7.3) % and TPV of 422.9 (±387.9 â€‹mm3) while patients with at least one vessel ischemia (FFR ≤0.8) had a PAV of 15.2 (±9.5)% and TPV of 694.6 (±485.1). Definition of plaque stage thresholds of 0, 250, 750 â€‹mm3 and 0, 5, and 15% PAV resulted in 4 clinically distinct stages in which patients with no, nonobstructive, single VD and multi-vessel disease were optimally distributed. CONCLUSION: Atherosclerotic plaque burden by QCT is related to stenosis severity and extent as well as ischemia. We propose staging of CAD atherosclerotic plaque burden using the following definitions: Stage 0 (Normal, 0% PAV, 0 â€‹mm3 TPV), Stage 1 (Mild, >0-5% PAV or >0-250 â€‹mm3 TPV), Stage 2 (Moderate, >5-15% PAV or >250-750 â€‹mm3 TPV) and Stage 3 (Severe, >15% PAV or >750 mm3 TPV).