Utility of RAND/UCLA appropriateness method in validating multiple-choice questions on ECG.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the utility of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) in validating expert consensus-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on electrocardiogram (ECG). METHODS: According to the RAM user's manual, nine panelists comprising various experts who routinely handle ECGs were asked to reach a consensus in three phases: a preparatory phase (round 0), an online test phase (round 1), and a face-to-face expert panel meeting (round 2). In round 0, the objectives and future timeline of the study were elucidated to the nine expert panelists with a summary of relevant literature. In round 1, 100 ECG questions prepared by two skilled cardiologists were answered, and the success rate was calculated by dividing the number of correct answers by 9. Furthermore, the questions were stratified into "Appropriate," "Discussion," or "Inappropriate" according to the median score and interquartile range (IQR) of appropriateness rating by nine panelists. In round 2, the validity of the 100 ECG questions was discussed in an expert panel meeting according to the results of round 1 and finally reassessed as "Appropriate," "Candidate," "Revision," and "Defer." RESULTS: In round 1 results, the average success rate of the nine experts was 0.89. Using the median score and IQR, 54 questions were classified as " Discussion." In the expert panel meeting in round 2, 23% of the original 100 questions was ultimately deemed inappropriate, although they had been prepared by two skilled cardiologists. Most of the 46 questions categorized as "Appropriate" using the median score and IQR in round 1 were considered "Appropriate" even after round 2 (44/46, 95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the median score and IQR allowed for a more objective determination of question validity. The RAM may help select appropriate questions, contributing to the preparation of higher-quality tests.

Performance of DETECT Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Algorithm According to the Hemodynamic Definition of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in the 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: The evidence-based DETECT pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) algorithm is frequently used in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) to help clinicians screen for PAH by using noninvasive data to recommend patient referral to echocardiography and, if applicable, for a diagnostic right-sided heart catheterization. However, the hemodynamic definition of PAH was recently updated in the 2022 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines. The performance of DETECT PAH in identifying patients with a high risk of PAH according to this new definition was assessed. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of DETECT, which comprised 466 patients with SSc, the performance of the DETECT PAH algorithm in identifying patients with a high risk of PAH as defined in the 2022 ESC/ERS guidelines (mean pulmonary arterial pressure [mPAP] >20 mm Hg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [PCWP] ≤15 mm Hg, and pulmonary vascular resistance >2 Wood units) was assessed using summary statistics and was descriptively compared to the known performance of DETECT PAH as defined in 2014, when it was developed (mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and PCWP ≤15 mm Hg). RESULTS: The sensitivity of DETECT PAH in identifying patients with a high risk of PAH according to the 2022 ESC/ERS definition was lower (88.2%) compared to the 2014 definition (95.8%). Specificity improved from 47.8% to 50.8%. CONCLUSION: The performance of the DETECT algorithm to screen for PAH in patients with SSc is maintained when PAH is defined according to the 2022 ESC/ERS hemodynamic definition, indicating that DETECT remains applicable to screen for PAH in patients with SSc.

Preoperative Management of Medications for Neurologic Diseases: Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement Consensus Statement.

Neurologic diseases are prevalent in patients undergoing invasive procedures; yet, no societal guidelines exist as to best practice in management of perioperative medications prescribed to treat these disorders. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement tasked experts in internal medicine, anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, and neurology to provide evidence-based recommendations for preoperative management of these medications. The aim of this review is not only to provide consensus recommendations for preoperative management of patients on medications for neurologic disorders, but also to serve as an educational guide to perioperative clinicians. While, in general, medications for neurologic disorders should be continued preoperatively, an individualized approach may be needed in certain situations (eg, holding anticonvulsants on day of surgery if electroencephalographic mapping is planned during epilepsy surgery). Pertinent interactions with commonly used drugs in anesthesia practice, as well as considerations for targeted laboratory testing or perioperative drug substitutions, are addressed as well.

Preoperative Management of Medications for Psychiatric Diseases: Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement Consensus Statement.

There is a lack of guidelines for preoperative management of psychiatric medications leading to variation in care and the potential for perioperative complications and surgical procedure cancellations on the day of surgery. The Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement identified preoperative psychiatric medication management as an area in which consensus could improve patient care. The aim of this consensus statement is to provide recommendations to clinicians regarding preoperative psychiatric medication management. Several categories of drugs were identified including antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medications. Literature searches and review of primary and secondary data sources were performed for each medication/medication class. We used a modified Delphi process to develop consensus recommendations for preoperative management of individual medications in each of these drug categories. While most medications should be continued perioperatively to avoid risk of relapse of the psychiatric condition, adjustments may need to be made on a case-by-case basis for certain drugs.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Emergent cardiac outcomes in patients with normal electrocardiograms in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians (EP) are frequently interrupted to screen electrocardiograms (ECG) from Emergency Department (ED) patients undergoing triage. Our objective was to identify discrepancies between the computer ECG interpretation and the cardiologist ECG interpretation and if any patients with normal ECGs underwent emergent cardiac intervention. We hypothesized that computer-interpreted normal ECGs do not require immediate review by an EP. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of adult (≥ 18 years old) ED patients with computer-interpreted normal ECGs. Laboratory, diagnostic testing and clinical outcomes were abstracted following accepted methodologic guidelines. The primary outcome was emergent cardiac catheterization (within four hours of ED arrival). All ECGs underwent final cardiologist interpretation. When cardiology interpretation differed from the computer (discrepant ECG interpretation), the difference was classified as potentially clinically significant or not clinically significant. Data was described with simple descriptive statistics. MAIN FINDINGS: 989 ECGs interpreted as normal by the computer were analyzed with a mean age of 50.4 ± 16.8 years (range 18-96 years) and 527 (53%) female. Discrepant ECG interpretations were identified in 184 cases including 124 (12.5%, 95% CI 10.4, 14.7%) not clinically significant and 60 (6.1%, 95% CI 4.6, 7.7%) potentially clinically significant. The 60 potentially clinically significant changes included: ST/T wave changes 45 (75%), T wave inversions 6 (10%), prolonged QT 3 (5%), and possible ischemia 10 (17%). Of these 60, 21 (35%) patients were admitted. Six patients had potassium levels >6.0 mEq/L, with one having a potentially clinically significant ECG change. No patient (0%, 95% CI 0, 0.3%) underwent immediate (within four hours) cardiac catherization whereas two underwent delayed cardiac interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiologists frequently disagree with a computer-interpreted normal ECG. Patients with computer-interpreted normal ECGs, however, rarely had significant ischemic events. A rare number of patients will have important cardiac outcomes regardless of the computer-generated normal ECG interpretation. Immediate EP review of the ECG, however, would not have changed these patients' ED courses.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Health Technology Assessment for Cardiovascular Digital Health Technologies and Artificial Intelligence: Why Is It Different?

Innovations in health care are growing exponentially, resulting in improved quality of and access to care, as well as rising societal costs of care and variable reimbursement. In recent years, digital health technologies and artificial intelligence have become of increasing interest in cardiovascular medicine owing to their unique ability to empower patients and to use increasing quantities of data for moving toward personalised and precision medicine. Health technology assessment agencies evaluate the money spent on a health care intervention or technology to attain a given clinical impact and make recommendations for reimbursement considerations. However, there is a scarcity of economic evaluations of cardiovascular digital health technologies and artificial intelligence. The current health technology assessment framework is not equipped to address the unique, dynamic, and unpredictable value considerations of these technologies and highlight the need to better approach the digital health technologies and artificial intelligence health technology assessment process. In this review, we compare digital health technologies and artificial intelligence with traditional health care technologies, review existing health technology assessment frameworks, and discuss challenges and opportunities related to cardiovascular digital health technologies and artificial intelligence health technology assessment. Specifically, we argue that health technology assessments for digital health technologies and artificial intelligence applications must allow for a much shorter device life cycle, given the rapid and even potentially continuously iterative nature of this technology, and thus an evidence base that maybe less mature, compared with traditional health technologies and interventions.

Estimated plasma volume status is a modest predictor of true plasma volume excess in compensated chronic heart failure patients.

Plasma volume and especially plasma volume excess is a relevant predictor for the clinical outcome of heart failure patients. In recent years, estimated plasma volume based on anthropometric characteristics and blood parameters has been used whilst direct measurement of plasma volume has not entered clinical routine. It is unclear whether the estimation of plasma volume can predict a true plasma volume excess. Plasma volume was measured in 47 heart failure patients (CHF, 10 female) using an abbreviated carbon monoxide rebreathing method. Plasma volume and plasma volume status were also estimated based on two prediction formulas (Hakim, Kaplan). The predictive properties of the estimated plasma volume status to detect true plasma volume excess > 10% were analysed based on logistic regression and receiver operator characteristics. The area under the curve (AUC) to detect plasma volume excess based on calculation of plasma volume by the Hakim formula is 0.65 (with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.62 at a threshold of - 16.5%) whilst the AUC for the Kaplan formula is 0.72 (PPV = 0.67 at a threshold of - 6.3%). Only the estimated plasma volume status based on prediction of plasma volume by the Kaplan formula formally appears as an acceptable predictor of true plasma volume excess, whereas calculation based on the Hakim formula does not sufficiently predict a true plasma volume excess. The low positive predictive values for both methods suggest that plasma volume status estimation based on these formulas is not suitable for clinical decision making.

A retrospective HEART risk score comparation of acute non-traumatic chest pain patients in an emergency department in Spain.

Non traumatic chest pain is the second most common cause of attention at the Emergency Departments (ED). The objective is to compare the effectiveness of HEART risk score and the risk of having a Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event (MACE) during the following 6 weeks in 'Acute Non-traumatic Chest Pain' (ANTCP) patients of an ED in Lleida (Spain). The ANTCP patient cohort was defined using medical data from January 2015 to January 2016. A retrospective study was performed among 300 ANTCP patients. Diagnostic accuracy to predict MACE, HEART risk score effectiveness and patient risk stratification were analysed on the ANTCP Cohort. HEART risk score was conducted on ANTCP Cohort data and patients were stratified as low-risk (n = 116, 38.7%), moderate-risk (n = 164, 54.7%) and high-risk (n = 20, 6.7%); differently from the assessment performed by 'Current Emergency Department Guidelines' (CEDG) on the same patients: low risk and discharge (n = 56, 18.7%), medium risk and need of complementary tests (n = 137, 45.7%) and high risk and hospital admission (n = 107, 35.7%).The incidence of MACE was 2.5%, 20.7% and 100% in low, moderate and high-risk, respectively. Discrimination and accuracy indexes were moderate (AUC = 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.80). Clustering moderate-high risk groups by MACE incidence showed an 89.5% of sensitivity. Data obtained from this study suggests that HEART risk score stratified better 'acute non-traumatic chest pain' (ANTCP) patients in an Emergency Department (ED) compared with 'Current Emergency Department Guidelines' (CEDG) at the Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova (HUAV). HEART score would reduce the number of subsequent consultations, unnecessary admissions and complementary tests.Trial registration: Retrospectively registered.

Discordant and inappropriate discordant recommendations in consensus and evidence based guidelines: empirical analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines. DESIGN: Empirical analysis. DATA SOURCE: Guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Recommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness). RESULTS: The study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach. CONCLUSION: Consensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.

Comparison of two strategies for managing in-hospital cardiac arrest.

In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is associated with poor outcomes. There are currently no standards for cardiac arrest teams in terms of member composition and task allocation. Here we aimed to compare two different cardiac arrest team concepts to cover IHCA management in terms of survival and neurological outcomes. This prospective study enrolled 412 patients with IHCA from general medical wards. From May 2014 to April 2016, 228 patients were directly transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) for ongoing resuscitation. In the ICU, resuscitation was extended to advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) (Load-and-Go [LaG] group). By May 2016, a dedicated cardiac arrest team provided by the ICU provided ACLS in the ward. After return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), the patients (n = 184) were transferred to the ICU (Stay-and-Treat [SaT] group). Overall, baseline characteristics, aetiologies, and characteristics of cardiac arrest were similar between groups. The time to endotracheal intubation was longer in the LaG group than in the SaT group (6 [5, 8] min versus 4 [2, 5] min, p = 0.001). In the LaG group, 96% of the patients were transferred to the ICU regardless of ROSC achievement. In the SaT group, 83% of patients were transferred to the ICU (p = 0.001). Survival to discharge did not differ between the LaG (33%) and the SaT (35%) groups (p = 0.758). Ultimately, 22% of patients in the LaG group versus 21% in the SaT group were discharged with good neurological outcomes (p = 0.857). In conclusion, we demonstrated that the cardiac arrest team concepts for the management of IHCA did not differ in terms of survival and neurological outcomes. However, a dedicated (intensive care) cardiac arrest team could take some load off the ICU.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.