Centralized Triage of Suspected Coronary Artery Disease Using Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography to Optimize the Diagnostic Yield of Invasive Angiography.

Background: Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) is preferable to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis in elective patients without known CAD. Methods: We conducted a nonrandomized interventional study involving 2 tertiary care centres in Ontario. From July 2018 to February 2020, outpatients referred for elective ICA were identified through a centralized triage process and were recommended to undergo CCTA first instead of ICA. Patients with borderline or obstructive CAD on CCTA were recommended to undergo subsequent ICA. Intervention acceptability, fidelity, and effectiveness were assessed. Results: A total of 226 patients were screened, with 186 confirmed to be eligible, of whom 166 had patient and physician approval to proceed with CCTA (89% acceptability). Among consenting patients, 156 (94%) underwent CCTA first; 43 (28%) had borderline/obstructive CAD on CCTA, and only 1 with normal/nonobstructive CAD on CCTA was referred for subsequent ICA against protocol (99% fidelity). Overall, 119 of 156 CCTA-first patients did not have ICA within the following 90 days (i.e., 76% potentially avoided ICA, due to the intervention). Among the 36 who underwent ICA post-CCTA per protocol, 24 had obstructive CAD (66.7% diagnostic yield). If all patients who were referred for and underwent ICA at either centre between July 2016 and February 2020 (n = 694 pre-implementation; n = 333 post-implementation) had had CCTA first, an additional 42 patients per 100 would have had an obstructive CAD finding on their ICA (95% confidence interval = 26-59). Conclusion: A centralized triage process, in which elective outpatients referred for ICA are instead referred for CCTA first, appears to be acceptable and effective in diagnosing obstructive CAD and improving efficiencies in our healthcare system.

Contexte: La coronarographie par tomodensitométrie (coro-TDM) est préférable à la coronarographie invasive chez les patients sans coronaropathie connue chez qui le diagnostic d'une coronaropathie n'est pas urgent. Méthodologie: Nous avons réalisé une étude interventionnelle non randomisée dans deux centres de soins tertiaires en Ontario. Les patients ambulatoires pour qui une coronarographie invasive non urgente a été demandée entre juillet 2018 et février 2020 ont été recensés par un processus centralisé de triage et se sont fait recommander de subir d'abord une coro-TDM. Les patients qui présentaient une co-ronaropathie obstructive ou dont les résultats se trouvaient tout juste à la limite de ce diagnostic lors de la coro-TDM se faisaient recommander une coronarographie invasive subséquente. L'acceptabilité de l'intervention, sa fidélité et son efficacité ont été évaluées. Résultats: Au total, 226 patients ont été sélectionnés et 186 ont été jugés admissibles. Parmi ces derniers, 166 ont accepté de subir la coro-TDM recommandée par le médecin (acceptabilité de 89 %). Parmi les patients ayant donné leur consentement, 156 (94 %) se sont d'abord soumis à une coro-TDM, et 43 (28 %) présentaient une coronaropathie obstructive ou des résultats limites selon cet examen. Seulement un patient ne présentant pas de coronaropathie ou présentant une coronaropathie non obstructive à la coro-TDM a été orienté vers une coronarographie invasive subséquente, contrairement au protocole (fidélité de 99 %). En tout, 119 des 156 patients s'étant d'abord soumis à une coro-TDM n'ont pas eu à subir une coronarographie invasive dans les 90 jours suivants (76 % d'entre eux ont potentiellement évité une coronarographie invasive grâce à cette première intervention). Parmi les 36 patients qui ont subi une coronarographie invasive après la coro-TDM, comme le recommandait le protocole, 24 présentaient une coronaropathie obstructive (rendement diagnostique de 66,7 %). Si tous les patients qui ont été orientés vers une coronarographie invasive et qui se sont soumis à cet examen dans l'un ou l'autre des centres entre juillet 2016 et février 2020 (n = 694 avant l'instauration; n = 333 après l'instauration) avaient d'abord passé une coro-TDM, une coronaropathie obstructive aurait été décelée lors de la coronarographie invasive chez 42 patients de plus par tranche de 100 patients (intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 26 à 59). Conclusion: Le recours à un processus de triage centralisé permettant de faire d'abord passer une coro-TDM aux patients ambulatoires dans une situation non urgente qui doivent subir une coronarographie invasive semble être un moyen acceptable et efficace de diagnostiquer la coronaropathie obstructive et d'améliorer l'efficacité dans notre système de santé.

Personalized vascular healthcare: insights from a large international survey.

Fragmentation of healthcare systems through limited cross-speciality communication and intermittent, intervention-based care, without insight into follow-up and compliance, results in poor patient experiences and potentially contributes to suboptimal outcomes. Data-driven tools and novel technologies have the capability to address these shortcomings, but insights from all stakeholders in the care continuum remain lacking. A structured online questionnaire was given to respondents (n = 1432) in nine global geographies to investigate attitudes to the use of data and novel technologies in the management of vascular disease. Patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease (n = 961), physicians responsible for their care (n = 345), and administrators/healthcare leaders with responsibility for commissioning/procuring cardiovascular services (n = 126) were included. Narrative themes arising from the survey included patients' desire for more personalized healthcare, shared decision-making, and improved communication. Patients, administrators, and physicians perceived and experienced deficiencies in continuity of care, and all acknowledged the potential for data-driven techniques and novel technologies to address some of these shortcomings. Further, physicians and administrators saw the 'upstream' segment of the care journey-before diagnosis, at point of diagnosis, and when determining treatment-as key to enabling tangible improvements in patient experience and outcomes. Finally, despite acceptance that data sharing is critical to the success of such interventions, there remains persistent issues related to trust and transparency. The current fragmented care continuum could be improved and streamlined through the adoption of advanced data analytics and novel technologies, including diagnostic and monitoring techniques. Such an approach could enable the refocusing of healthcare from intermittent contacts and intervention-only focus to a more holistic patient view.

Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

Importance: Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown. Objective: To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist. Results: Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

Antithrombotic Management After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Survey of Canadian Physicians.

Optimal postprocedural antithrombotic regimen is uncertain after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We developed an online questionnaire on post-TAVR antithrombotic management. After research ethics board approval, we distributed the survey to TAVR implanters across Canada. A total of 24 TAVR implanters from 17 centres responded to the survey for a response rate of 75%. Dual antiplatelet therapy for variable durations was the preferred initial treatment for patients in sinus rhythm after isolated TAVR, TAVR with a recent stent (≤ 1 month), and valve-in-valve procedures (71%, 96%, and 65%, respectively). Most respondents continued patients on acetylsalicylic acid indefinitely after these procedures (100%, 92%, 90%, respectively). In patients with atrial fibrillation, the CHA2DS2-VASC score was the preferred stroke risk score for 57% of respondents, the CHADS2 score was the preferred stroke risk score for 22% of respondents, and the CHADS65 score was the preferred stroke risk score for 17% of respondents. To determine the risk of bleeding, the HASBLED score was most often used (52%), but 48% of respondents indicated that they did not use a bleeding risk score. In the presence of atrial fibrillation, antithrombotic therapy choice varied widely. Our survey shows that dual antiplatelet therapy is the most common discharge regimen after TAVR in current practice. However, the choice and duration of antithrombotic regimen vary in patients requiring anticoagulation.