2015 ACC Health Policy Statement on Cardiovascular Team-Based Care and the Role of Advanced Practice Providers.

The mission of the American College of Cardiology is "to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health." Cardiovascular team-based care is a paradigm for practice that can transform care, improve heart health, and help meet the demands of the future. One strategic goal of the College is to help members successfully transition their clinical practices to the future, with all its complexity, challenges, and opportunities. The ACC's strategic plan is aligned with the triple aim of improved care, improved population health, and lower costs per capita. The traditional understanding of quality, access, and cost is that you cannot improve one component without diminishing the others. With cardiovascular team-based care, it is possible to achieve the triple aim of improving quality, access, and cost simultaneously to also improve cardiovascular health. Striving to serve the best interests of patients is the true north of our guiding principles. Cardiovascular team-based care is a model that can improve care coordination and communication and allow each team member to focus more on the quality of care. In addition, the cardiovascular team-based care model increases access to cardiovascular care and allows expansion of services to populations and geographic areas that are currently underserved. This document will increase awareness of the important components of cardiovascular team-based care and create an opportunity for more discussion about the most creative and effective means of implementing it. We hope that this document will stimulate further discussions and activities within the ACC and beyond about team-based care. We have identified areas that need improvement, specifically in APP education and state regulation. The document encourages the exploration of collaborative care models that should enable team members to optimize their education, training, experience, and talent. Improved team leadership, coordination, collaboration, engagement, and efficiency will enable the delivery of higher-value care to the betterment of our patients and society.

Coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for near-term quality of life, cost and radiation exposure: a prospective multicenter randomized pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes and resource utilization after coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) versus myocardial perfusion single-photon emission CT (MPS) in patients with stable angina and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) has not been examined. OBJECTIVE: We determined the near-term clinical effect and resource utilization after cardiac CTA compared with MPS. METHODS: We randomly assigned 180 patients (age, 57.3 ± 9.8 years; 50.6% men) presenting with stable chest pain and suspected CAD at 2 sites to initial diagnostic evaluation by coronary CTA (n = 91) or MPS (n = 89). The primary outcome was near-term angina-specific health status; the secondary outcomes were incident medical and invasive treatments for CAD, CAD health care costs, and estimated radiation dose. RESULTS: No patients experienced myocardial infarction or death with 98.3% follow-up at 55 ± 34 days. Both arms experienced comparable improvements in angina-specific health status. Patients who received coronary CTA had increased incident aspirin (22% vs 8%; P = 0.04) and statin (7% vs -3.5%; P = 0.03) use, similar rates of CAD-related hospitalization, invasive coronary angiography, noninvasive cardiac imaging tests, and increased revascularization (8% vs 1%; P = 0.03). Coronary CTA had significantly lower total costs ($781.08 [interquartile range (IQR), $367.80-$4349.48] vs $1214.58 [IQR, $978.02-$1569.40]; P < 0.001) with no difference in induced costs. Coronary CTA had a significantly lower total estimated effective radiation dose (7.4 mSv [IQR, 5.0-14.0 mSv] vs 13.3 mSv [IQR, 13.1-38.0 mSv]; P < 0.0001) with no difference in induced radiation. CONCLUSION: In a pilot randomized controlled trial, patients with stable CAD undergoing coronary CTA and MPS experience comparable improvements in near-term angina-related quality of life. Compared with MPS, coronary CTA evaluation is associated with more aggressive medical therapy, increased coronary revascularization, lower total costs, and lower effective radiation dose.

Relationship between previous training and experience and results of the certification examination in cardiovascular computed tomography.

Examinees of the first Certifying Examination in Cardiovascular Computed Tomography were surveyed regarding their training and experience in cardiac computed tomography. The results support the current training pathways within the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association competency criteria that include either experience-based or formal training program in cardiovascular computed tomography. Increased duration in clinical practice, the number of scans clinically interpreted in practice, and level 3 competency were associated with higher passing rates.

Blueprint of the certification examination in cardiovascular computed tomography.

Physician certification is critical in all areas of cardiovascular imaging to assure optimal performance and interpretation of quality studies for patient diagnosis and management. This is especially important in the field of cardiovascular computed tomography where practitioners have varied training and expertise that may not cover the full range of skills in the technical, image interpretative and clinical application of the results for patient management. The Certification Board of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography was developed to test the minimal level of competence of physicians performing cardiovascular computed tomography. In this article, the process of defining the content areas, determining candidate eligibility and the process of examination development and testing will be defined.

Use of multidetector computed tomography after mildly abnormal myocardial perfusion stress testing in a large single-specialty cardiology practice.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited on using 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) as a gatekeeper to cardiac catheterization in patients with mild abnormalities on myocardial perfusion stress imaging (MPI). OBJECTIVE: We compared the rate of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) within 6 months after finding mildly abnormal MPI results before and after implementing 64-slice MDCT. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients referred for follow-up based on a mildly abnormal MPI. Pre- and post-MDCT cohorts were matched according to age, sex, prior history of coronary artery disease (CAD), and presence of clinical symptoms (chest pain or exertional dyspnea or both). Case matching resulted in 154 patients in each cohort. The primary endpoint was the rate of ICA. RESULTS: From the clinical evaluation or MDCT results, 87 patients were referred for ICA, 60 (39%) in the pre-MDCT cohort and 27 (18%) in the post-MDCT cohort. Among those referred for ICA, 22 (14%) in the pre-MDCT cohort and 17 (11%) in the post-MDCT cohort underwent revascularization. Given the similar rate of revascularizations in both cohorts, we estimate that patients in the post-MDCT cohort were 86% less likely to receive ICA compared with patients in the pre-MDCT cohort (odds ratio = 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.33). During 6 months of follow-up, no clinical events were observed in either cohort for patients not referred to ICA. CONCLUSION: For patients with mildly abnormal MPI followed by clinical evaluation, MDCT examination was associated with a significant reduction in rate of referral to ICA.

Usefulness of multislice computed tomographic coronary angiography to identify patients with abnormal myocardial perfusion stress in whom diagnostic catheterization may be safely avoided.

Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) has been validated for noninvasive assessment of coronary anatomy. The aim was to establish whether CTA could guide the use of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in symptomatic patients with intermediate risk after myocardial perfusion stress imaging (MPSI). From April 2005 to February 2006, patients referred for CTA to a cardiology practice were entered into a database. Inclusion required symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease and intermediate-risk MPSI. Subjects with intermediate risk after MPSI underwent CTA, and if severe stenosis or moderate stenosis matching a perfusion defect was found, ICA was performed. If appropriate, patients were then sent for revascularization. Clinical follow-up was completed until December 2006. Main outcome measures were number of patients sent for ICA, immediate revascularization after ICA, and adverse outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, and late revascularization). Four hundred twenty-one patients were included. Adequate diagnostic-quality images were obtained in 99%. After MPSI-CTA assessment, 78 patients (18.5%) were sent for ICA and 343 (81.5%) were medically managed. Follow-up was 15+/-3 months. In the group referred for ICA, there were 50 cases of immediate revascularization, 1 non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 1 death, and 5 patients requiring repeat ICA, 3 of whom underwent late revascularization. In the medically managed group, 6 patients required late ICA, 1 of whom underwent revascularization. In conclusion, in symptomatic patients with suspected coronary artery disease and intermediate-risk MPSI results, CTA can identify up to 80% of patients at low risk of events in whom ICA may be safely avoided. Additional studies assessing new technologies combining MPSI-CTA are needed to refine imaging strategies in these patients.