The National Cardiovascular Data Registry Voluntary Public Reporting Program: An Interim Report From the NCDR Public Reporting Advisory Group.

Public reporting of health care data continues to proliferate as consumers and other stakeholders seek information on the quality and outcomes of care. Medicare's Hospital Compare website, the U.S. News & World Report hospital rankings, and several state-level programs are well known. Many rely heavily on administrative data as a surrogate to reflect clinical reality. Clinical data are traditionally more difficult and costly to collect, but more accurately reflect patients' clinical status, thus enhancing the validity of quality metrics. We describe the public reporting effort being launched by the American College of Cardiology and partnering professional organizations using clinical data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) programs. This hospital-level voluntary effort will initially report process of care measures from the percutaneous coronary intervention (CathPCI) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registries of the NCDR. Over time, additional process, outcomes, and composite performance metrics will be reported.

Improving the process of informed consent for percutaneous coronary intervention: patient outcomes from the Patient Risk Information Services Manager (ePRISM) study.

BACKGROUND: While the process of informed consent is designed to transfer knowledge of the risks and benefits of treatment and to engage patients in shared medical decision-making, this is poorly done in routine clinical care. We assessed the impact of a novel informed consent form for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) that is more simply written, includes images of the procedure, and embeds individualized estimates of outcomes on multiple domains of successful informed consent and shared decision-making. METHODS: We interviewed 590 PCI patients receiving traditional consent documents and 527 patients receiving novel ePRISM consents at 9 US centers and compared patients' perceptions, knowledge transfer, and engagement in medical decision-making. Heterogeneity across sites was assessed and adjusted for using hierarchical models. RESULTS: Site-adjusted analyses revealed more frequent review (72% for ePRISM vs 45% for original consents) and better understanding of the ePRISM consents (ORs=1.8-3.0, depending upon the outcome) with marked heterogeneity across sites (median relative difference [MRD] in the ORs of ePRISM's effect =2-3.2). Patients receiving ePRISM consents better understood the purposes and risks of the procedure (ORs=1.9-3.9, MRDs=1.1-6.2), engaged more in shared decision-making (proportional OR=2.1 [95% CI=1.02-4.4], MRD=2.2) and discussed stent options with their physicians (58% vs. 31%; site-adjusted odds ratio=2.7 [95% CI=1.2, 6.3], MRD=2.6) more often. CONCLUSIONS: A personalized consent document improved the process of informed consent and shared decision-making. Marked heterogeneity across hospitals highlights that consent documents are but one aspect of engaging patients in understanding and participating in treatment.

Concordance of physician ratings with the appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the consistency in appropriate use criteria (AUC) ratings among a broad range of practicing cardiologists and the AUC Technical Panel. BACKGROUND: AUC for coronary revascularization have been developed by selected experts. METHODS: Before AUC publication, 85 cardiologists from 10 U.S. institutions assessed the appropriateness of coronary revascularization for 68 indications that had been evaluated by the AUC Technical Panel. Each indication was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, based on the physician group's median rating. Rates of concordance between the physician group and the AUC Technical Panel (i.e., same appropriateness category assignment) and rates of nonagreement within the physician group (≥ 25% of panelists' ratings outside the group's appropriateness category assessment) were determined. RESULTS: Overall concordance between the 2 groups was 84%. Among indications classified as appropriate by the AUC Technical Panel, concordance between the 2 groups was excellent (94% [34 of 36]); however, nonagreement within the physician group was 44% (16 of 36). Among indications classified as uncertain, there was 73% (16 of 22) concordance between the 2 groups. Among inappropriate indications, concordance was moderate (70% [7 of 10]), but nonagreement occurred frequently (70% [7 of 10]). Moreover, there was substantial variation in appropriateness ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel (weighted kappa range: 0.05 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was good concordance in assessments of appropriateness for coronary revascularization between physicians and the AUC Technical Panel, nonagreement within the physician group was common and there was marked variation in ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel.

ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical scenarios where cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is frequently considered. The present document is an update to the original CCT/cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) appropriateness criteria published in 2006, written to reflect changes in test utilization, to incorporate new clinical data, and to clarify CCT use where omissions or lack of clarity existed in the original criteria (1). The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Ninety-three clinical scenarios were developed by a writing group and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9 to designate appropriate use, inappropriate use, or uncertain use. In general, use of CCT angiography for diagnosis and risk assessment in patients with low or intermediate risk or pretest probability for coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, whereas testing in high-risk patients, routine repeat testing, and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. Use of noncontrast computed tomography (CT) for calcium scoring was rated as appropriate within intermediate- and selected low-risk patients. Appropriate applications of CCT are also within the category of cardiac structural and functional evaluation. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making, performance, and reimbursement policy, and that they will help guide future research.

Correlates of late and very late thrombosis of drug eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Late and very late thrombosis of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) has received much attention but essentially remains unpredictable. We sought to identify correlates of stent thrombosis (ST) developing >30 days after DES implantation. METHODS: We analyzed data from our single-center registry on 5,342 consecutive patients, who underwent a first DES implant between May 2003 and December 2006. The Academic Research Consortium definitions were applied to classify definite, probable, and possible ST. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of ST. RESULTS: Follow-up information was obtained at 6 months and at 1, 2, and 3 years after DES implantation in 97.2%, 95.2%, 92.4%, and 89.8% of patients, respectively. We identified 34 patients who developed definite and 5 with probable ST >30 days after the index stent procedure. The 3-year cumulative incidence of definite and definite + probable ST >30 days was 1.33% and 1.50%, respectively. By Cox multiple variable regression, predictors of definite + probable ST were age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98, P < .001), current smoking (HR 2.55, 95% CI 1.29-5.07, P = .007), prior percutaneous coronary intervention (HR 2.68, 95% CI 1.42-5.05, P = .002), "off-label" DES indication (HR 3.10, 95% CI 1.10-8.75, P = .032), bifurcation stenting (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.40-3.99, P = .001), and stenting an occluded vessel (HR 3.02, 95% CI 1.59-5.74, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We identified several baseline characteristics, which, when combined, may identify patients at risk for late-occurring ST, particularly after off-label DES placement.

Short- and long-term clinical outcomes of coronary drug-eluting stent recipients presenting with chronic renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of drug-eluting stents (DES) excluded patients with severe renal insufficiency. We sought to evaluate the impact of baseline renal function on clinical outcomes in recipients of coronary DES. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our hospital databases to identify consecutive patients who underwent DES implantations between May 2003 and December 2004, subgrouped among 4 ranges of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between > or = 90 ml per minute and < 30 ml per minute, in 30 ml per minute decrements, and 1 group treated with long-term dialysis. Clinical follow up was obtained at 6 months, 1 year and annually thereafter. RESULTS: Our study group included 2,758 patients with long-term outcomes recorded over a mean follow up of 706 +/- 273 days. The rates of in-hospital adverse events increased significantly as GFR decreased, though no major adverse event occurred among the dialyzed patients. Actuarial survival analyses up to 2 years revealed significant between-groups differences in rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and death (both p < 0.001), while the differences in target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.069). By Cox regression analysis, a GFR < 60 ml per minute remained a significant predictor of 2-year mortality (p < 0.001) and MACE (p < 0.001), but not TVR (p = 0.839). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, low rates of TVR were observed over 2 years in DES recipients with a wide range of renal function. Low rates of TVR were countered by high rates of death and MACE among renally insufficient patients over the long term.

Long-term outcomes after management of restenosis or thrombosis of drug-eluting stents.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the outcomes of patients who developed coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) or stent thrombosis (STH) inside drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents have markedly reduced the incidence of restenosis. However, when restenosis occurs within a DES, its optimal management remains unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical and angiographic data from 92 patients who underwent revascularization for ISR (n = 84) or STH (n = 8) within a DES at our institution. Regular follow-ups were available up to 2 years. We recorded the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as deaths from all causes, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR), among patients treated by the "DES sandwich" technique or by other treatment methods. RESULTS: In-hospital MACE included 1 periprocedural MI and 2 deaths. Over a mean follow-up of 15 +/- 6 months, the overall rates of death, MI, and TLR were 8.7%, 2.2%, and 30.6%, respectively. By actuarial analysis, the 12-month TLR and MACE rates were 28.2% and 42.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current treatments of ISR or STH in DES are associated with a high long-term rate of MACE.