Coronary and Structural Heart Disease Interventions During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Road Map for Clinicians and Health Care Delivery Systems.

BACKGROUND: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, cath labs have had to modify their workflow for elective and urgent patients. METHODS: We surveyed 16 physicians across 3 hospitals in our healthcare system to address COVID-19 related concerns in the management of interventional and structural heart disease patients, and to formulate system wide criteria for deferring cases till after the pandemic. RESULTS: Our survey yielded common concerns centered on the need to protect patients, cath lab staff and physicians from unnecessary exposure to COVID-19; for COVID-19 testing prior to arrival to the cath lab; for clear communication between the referring physician and the interventionalist; but there was initial uncertainty among physicians regarding the optimal management of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI; percutaneous coronary intervention versus thrombolytics). Patients with stable angina and hemodynamically stable acute coronary syndromes were deemed suitable for initial medical management, except when they had large ischemic burden. Most transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI) were felt appropriate for postponement except in symptomatic patients with aortic valve area <0.5 cm2 or recent hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Most percutaneous mitral valve repair (pMVR) procedures were felt appropriate for postponement except in patients with HF. All left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and patent foramen ovale (PFO)/atrial septal defect (ASD) closure procedures were felt appropriate for postponement. CONCLUSION: Our survey of an experienced team of clinicians yielded concise guidelines to direct the management of CAD and structural heart disease patients during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Efficiency, Safety, and Quality of Life After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Performed With Moderate Sedation Versus General Anesthesia.

There is growing interest in "minimalist" transcatheter aortic valve implantation (M-TAVI), performed with conscious sedation instead of general anesthesia (GA-TAVI). We assessed the impact of M-TAVI on procedural efficiency, long-term safety, and quality of life (QoL) in 477 patients with severe aortic stenosis (82 years, women 50%, STS 5.0), who underwent M-TAVI (n = 278) or GA-TAVI (n = 199). M-TAVI patients were less likely to have NYHA Class ≥3, valve-in-valve TAVI, and receive self-expanding valves. M-TAVI was completed without conversion to GA in 269 (97%) patients. M-TAVI was more efficient that GA-TAVI including shorter lengths of stay (2 vs 3 days, p <0.0001), higher likelihood of being discharged home (87% vs 72%, p <0.0001), less use of blood transfusions (10% vs 22%, p = 0.0008), inotropes (13% vs 32%, p <0.0001), contrast volume (50 vs 90 ml, p <0.0001), fluoroscopy time (20 vs 24 minute, p <0.0001), and need for >1 valves (0.4 vs 5.5%, p = 0.0004). At 1-month, death/stroke (M-TAVI vs GA-TAVI 4.0 vs 6.5%) and a "safety composite" end point (death, stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, new dialysis, major vascular complication, major or life-threatening bleeding, and new pacemaker: 17.6% vs 21.1%) were similar (p = NS for both). At a median follow-up of 365 days, survival curves showed similar incidence of death/stroke as well as the safety composite end point between the groups. QoL scores were similar at baseline and 1-month after TAVI. In multivariable analyses, M-TAVI showed significant improvements in all parameters of procedural efficiency. In conclusion, M-TAVI is more efficient than GA-TAVI, with similar safety at 1-month and long-term, and similar QoL scores at 1 month.

The mentor match: A new approach to implementing formal mentorship in general surgery residency.

Mentorship is a vital component within general surgery residency that fosters success extending into future practices. Recognizing the need for formalized mentorship within our general surgery residency, a survey based match process was developed. The "Mentor Match" was developed by creating resident and faculty surveys using the six ACGME core competencies of patient care, medical knowledge, communication skills, practice based learning, system based practice and professionalism. Surveys focused on resident areas of weakness correlating to areas in which faculty expressed subjective strength. Survey results were used to match faculty mentors with resident mentees. One year after implementation, residents were surveyed to evaluate the perceived success of the match process and mentorship program. Resident participation was 100% with a survey response of 78%. Ninety-two percent of residents were satisfied with the program, 83% saw improvement in their areas of weakness and 75% felt the match process was effective in pairing mentors with mentees. In conclusion, the "Mentor Match" was an effective tool in developing a formalized mentorship program with positive results after one year of implementation.

What Is the Relative Value Unit of Being "On Call"?

There is very little information on what is the relative value unit (RVU) for a physician being "on call." This paper proposes a broad construct to devise a formula for the RVU of being on call.

Understanding ACGME Scholarly Activity Requirements for General Surgery Programs in the Era of Single Accreditation and the Next Accreditation System.

Becoming compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for scholarly activity and remaining compliant over time requires time and attention to the development of an environment of inquiry, which is reflected in detailed documentation submitted in program applications and annual updates. Since the beginning of the next accreditation system, all ACGME programs have been required to submit evidence of scholarly activity of both residents and faculty on an annual basis. Since 2014, American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs have been able to apply for ACGME accreditation under the Single Graduate Medical Education Accreditation initiative. The Residency Program Director, Chair, Designated Institutional Official, Faculty, and coordinator need to work cohesively to ensure compliance with all program requirements, including scholarly activity in order for American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs to receive Initial ACGME Accreditation and for current ACGME-accredited programs to maintain accreditation. Fortunately, there are many ways to show the type of scholarly activity that is required for the training of surgeons. In this article, we will review the ACGME General Surgery Program Requirements and definitions of scholarly activity. We will also offer suggestions for how programs may show evidence of scholarly activity.

Requirements for Certification in Surgery: A Comparison of the American Board of Surgery and the American Osteopathic Board of Surgery.

In early 2014, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the American Osteopathic Association, and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine agreed to a memorandum of understanding describing a single accreditation system for graduate medical education in the United States. Although there are many benefits, such as consistent quality of graduate medical education, alignment of competency standards, alignment with policymakers' expectations, unification of voices on graduate medical education access and funding issues, and visibility of osteopathic medicine, there are also many challenges in creating a uniform system of graduate medical education. The authors review the pathways to initial certification for both the American Board of Surgery and the American Osteopathic Board of Surgery and discuss recertification and maintenance of certification.

Effectiveness of the concomitant use of bivalirudin and drug-eluting stents (from the prospective, multicenter BivAlirudin and Drug-Eluting STents [ADEST] study).

Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) reduce restenosis compared with bare metal stents. Safety issues with drug-eluting stents are particularly important given concerns of possible increased thrombogenicity. Compared with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin has been shown to reduce the risk of hemorrhagic complications in patients receiving bare metal stents, with similar efficacy in preventing ischemic complications. The safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with SESs and bivalirudin anticoagulation have not been prospectively studied. This prospective study performed at 9 United States hospitals evaluated 1,182 patients referred for PCI with SESs in whom the procedural anticoagulant was bivalirudin. Clopidogrel was administered before PCI in 79% of patients, and only 5.3% received procedural glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. At 30 days, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 7.1% of patients, including 0.3% mortality, 4.4% myocardial infarction (defined as creatine kinase-MB >3x normal), 1.7% target vessel revascularization, and 0.6% stent thrombosis. Major bleeding occurred in only 0.8% of patients. Thus, use of bivalirudin as the procedural anticoagulant to support SES implantation in a "real world" population of patients undergoing PCI results in low rates of major adverse cardiac events, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding.

Anticoagulation with bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective analysis of high-risk patients treated with bivalirudin during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI) without concomitant glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibition. BACKGROUND: Reperfusion by PCI is the treatment of choice for patients with STEMI. In patients with stable or unstable angina without ST-segment elevation undergoing PCI, bivalirudin was at least as effective as heparin plus GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors in reducing ischemic events and more effective in preventing bleeding. There are no published studies detailing the use of bivalirudin in patients with STEMI. METHODS: From 09/02 to 05/03 at the Heart Care Centers of Illinois, Blue Island, Illinois. Ninety-one consecutive patients with STEMI underwent PCI with or without stent placement. Bivalirudin was administered as a bolus dose (0.75 mg/kg) followed by infusion (1.75 mg/kg/hr) for the duration of the procedure. Outcomes were recorded over a 30-day follow-up period. RESULTS: Patients (n = 91) had several high-risk characteristics (40% female, 30% diabetes mellitus, 21% previous MI and 18% cardiogenic shock). PCI procedures utilized balloons, stents, or a combination of both. Intraaortic balloon pumps were used for 41% and closure devices for 24% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation demonstrates excellent TIMI flow without the addition of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors. The low mortality and complication rates suggest anticoagulation with bivalirudin in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI is feasible and warrants further study in larger controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of bivalirudin in this patient population.