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.

The appropriate use criteria: Improvements for its integration into real world clinical practice.

The purpose of this position statement is to suggest ways in which future appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization might be restructured to: (1) incorporate improvement in quality of life and angina relief as primary goals of therapy, (2) integrate the findings of recent trials into quality appraisal, (3) employ the combined information of the coronary angiogram and invasive physiologic measurements together with the results of stress test imaging to assess risk, and (4) recognize the essential role that patient preference plays in making individualized therapeutic decisions. The AUC is a valuable tool within the quality assurance process; it is vital that interventionists ensure that percutaneous coronary intervention case selection is both evidence-based and patient oriented. Appropriate patient selection is an important quality indicator and adherence to evidence-based practice should be one metric in a portfolio of process and outcome indicators that measure quality.

Benchmarking as a quality of care improvement tool for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an NCDR ACTION Registry experience in Latin America.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to examine the effect of benchmarking on quality-of-care metrics in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) through the implementation of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ACTION Registry. DESIGN: From January 2005 to December 2017, 712 patients underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention PCI-499 before NCDR ACTION Registry implementation (prior to 2013) and 213 after implementation. SETTING: STEMI. PARTICIPANTS: 712 patients. INTERVENTION(S): Primary PCI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We examined hospital performance for the quality indicators in processes and outcomes of the management of patients presenting with STEMI. Outcome measures include door-to-balloon time (DBT), antiplatelet therapy and anti-ischemic drugs prescribed at discharge from pre-NCDR ACTION Registry to post-implementation. RESULTS: There was improvement in DBT, decreasing from 94 min in 2012 (before NCDR adoption) to reach a median of 47 min in 2017 (Ptrend < 0.001). The percentage of cases with the optimal DBT of < 90 min increased from 55.8% before to 90.1% after the implementation of the NCDR ACTION Registry (Ptrend < 0.001). The rate of aspirin (90.3-100%, P < 0.001), P2Y12 inhibitor (70.1-78.4%, P = 0.02), beta-blocker (76.8-100%, P < 0.001) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (60.1-99.5%, P < 0.001) prescribed at discharge increased from pre-NCDR ACTION Registry to post-implementation. Adjusted mortality before and after NCDR ACTION Registry implementation showed significant change (from 9.04 to 5.92%; P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the ACC NCDR ACTION Registry led to incremental gains in the quality in STEMI management through the benchmarking of process of care and clinical outcomes, achieving reduced DBT, improving guideline-directed medication adherence and increasing patient safety, treatment efficacy and survival.

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.

Patients and Their Physician's Perspectives About Oral Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Not Receiving an Anticoagulant.

Importance: The underuse of oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major issue that is not well understood. Objective: To understand the lack of anticoagulation by assessing the perceptions of patients with AF who are not receiving anticoagulation and their physician's about the risk of stroke and the benefits and risks of anticoagulation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with nonvalvular AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more (calculated as congestive heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years and older, diabetes, stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, and sex category) who were not receiving anticoagulation and were enrolled from 19 sites within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry (PINNACLE Registry) between January 18, 2017, and May 7, 2018. Data were collected from January 18, 2017, to September 30, 2019, and analyzed from April 2022 to March 2023. Exposure: Each patient enrolled in the study completed a survey, and their treating physician then conducted a clinical review of their care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Assessment of willingness for anticoagulation treatment and its appropriateness after central review by a panel of 4 cardiologists. Use of anticoagulation at 1 year follow-up was compared vs similar patients at other centers in the PINNACLE Registry. Results: Of the 817 patients enrolled, the median (IQR) age was 76.0 (69.0-83.0) years, 369 (45.2%) were women, and the median (IQR) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.0 (3.0-6.0). The top 5 reasons physicians cited for no anticoagulation were low AF burden or successful rhythm control (278 [34.0%]), patient refusal (272 [33.3%]), perceived low risk of stroke (206 [25.2%]), fall risk (175 [21.4%]), and high bleeding risk (167 [20.4%]). After rereview, 221 physicians (27.1%) would reconsider prescribing oral anticoagulation as compared with 311 patients (38.1%), including 67 (24.6%) whose physician cited patient refusal. Of 647 patients (79.2%) adjudicated as appropriate or may be appropriate for anticoagulation, physicians would reconsider anticoagulation for only 177 patients (21.2%), while 527 patients (64.5%) would either agree to starting anticoagulation (311 [38.1%]) or were neutral (216 [27.3%]) to starting anticoagulation. Upon follow-up, 119 patients (14.6%) in the BOAT-AF study were prescribed anticoagulation, as compared with 55 879 of 387 975 similar patients (14.4%) at other centers in the PINNACLE Registry. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that patients with AF who are not receiving anticoagulation are more willing to consider anticoagulation than their physicians. These data emphasize the need to revisit any prior decision against anticoagulation in a shared decision-making manner.

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.

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.