Association of Radial Artery Access with Reduced Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury.

Objectives: To determine if radial artery (RA) access compared with femoral artery (FA) access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with a lower incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Background: AKI results in substantial morbidity and cost following PCI. Prior studies comparing the occurrence of AKI associated with radial artery (RA) versus femoral artery (FA) access have mixed results. Methods: Using a large state-wide database, 14,077 patients (8,539 with RA and 5,538 patents with FA access) were retrospectively compared to assess the occurrence of AKI following PCI. To reduce selection bias and balance clinical data across the two groups, a novel machine learning method called a Generalized Boosted Model was conducted on the arterial access site generating a weighted propensity score for each variable. A logistic regression analysis was then performed on the occurrence of AKI following PCI using the weighted propensity scores from the Generalized Boosted Model. Results: As shown in other studies, multiple variables were associated with an increase in AKI after PCI. Only RA access (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74-0.91) and male gender (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.72-0.89) were associated with a lower occurrence of AKI. Based on the calculated Mehran scores, patients were stratified into groups with an increasing risk of AKI. RA access was consistently found to have a lower risk of AKI compared with FA access across these groups of increasing risk. Conclusions: Compared with FA access, RA access is associated with an 18% lower rate of AKI following PCI. This effect was observed among different levels of risk for developing AKI. Although developed from a retrospective analysis, this study supports the use of RA access when technically possible in a diverse group of patients.

Length of stay following percutaneous coronary intervention: An expert consensus document update from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions.

Since the publication of the 2009 SCAI Expert Consensus Document on Length of Stay Following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), advances in vascular access techniques, stent technology, and antiplatelet pharmacology have facilitated changes in discharge patterns following PCI. Additional clinical studies have demonstrated the safety of early and same day discharge in selected patients with uncomplicated PCI, while reimbursement policies have discouraged unnecessary hospitalization. This consensus update: (1) clarifies clinical and reimbursement definitions of discharge strategies, (2) reviews the technological advances and literature supporting reduced hospitalization duration and risk assessment, and (3) describes changes to the consensus recommendations on length of stay following PCI (Supporting Information Table S1). These recommendations are intended to support reasonable clinical decision making regarding postprocedure length of stay for a broad spectrum of patients undergoing PCI, rather than prescribing a specific period of observation for individual patients.

Correction to: ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease.

To more clearly reflect the relationship between iFR (instantaneous wave-free ratio) and FFR (fractional flow reserve), this Correction document highlights the following changes to the original document published in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology; the version available at JACC [1] has been updated to reflect the changes, with JACC's Correction document available at [2].

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes and stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing SIHD and acute coronary syndromes individually. This document presents the AUC for SIHD.Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice. These scenarios included information on symptom status; risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing; coronary disease burden; and, in some scenarios, fractional flow reserve testing, presence or absence of diabetes, and SYNTAX score. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt were affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization.A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with high symptom burden, high-risk features, and high coronary disease burden, as well as in patients receiving antianginal therapy, are deemed appropriate. Additionally, scenarios assessing the appropriateness of revascularization before kidney transplantation or transcatheter valve therapy are now rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

Comparison of clinical interpretation with visual assessment and quantitative coronary angiography in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice: the Assessing Angiography (A2) project.

BACKGROUND: Studies conducted decades ago described substantial disagreement and errors in physicians' angiographic interpretation of coronary stenosis severity. Despite the potential implications of such findings, no large-scale efforts to measure or improve clinical interpretation were subsequently undertaken. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical interpretation of stenosis severity in coronary lesions with an independent assessment using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 175 randomly selected patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention at 7 US hospitals in 2011. To assess agreement, we calculated mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA and a Cohen weighted κ statistic. Of 216 treated lesions, median percent diameter stenosis was 80.0% (quartiles 1 and 3, 80.0% and 90.0%), with 213 (98.6%) assessed as ≥70%. Mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA was 8.2±8.4%, reflecting an average higher percent diameter stenosis by clinical interpretation (P<0.001). A weighted κ of 0.27 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.36) was found between the 2 measurements. Of 213 lesions considered ≥70% by clinical interpretation, 56 (26.3%) were <70% by QCA, although none were <50%. Differences between the 2 measurements were largest for intermediate lesions by QCA (50% to <70%), with variation existing across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians tended to assess coronary lesions treated with percutaneous coronary intervention as more severe than measurements by QCA. Almost all treated lesions were ≥70% by clinical interpretation, whereas approximately one quarter were <70% by QCA. These findings suggest opportunities to improve clinical interpretation of coronary angiography.

Socioeconomic Distress Associated With Increased Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Over Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: The influence of socioeconomic determinants of health on choice of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for coronary artery disease is unknown. We hypothesized that higher Distressed Communities Index (DCI) scores, a comprehensive socioeconomic ranking by zip code, would be associated with more frequent PCI. METHODS: All patients undergoing isolated CABG or PCI in a regional American College of Cardiology CathPCI registry and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database (2018-2021) were assigned DCI scores (0 = no distress, 100 = severe distress) based on education level, poverty, unemployment, housing vacancies, median income, and business growth. Patients who presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or emergent procedures were excluded. The most distressed quintile (DCI ≥80) was compared with all other patients. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed the association between DCI and procedure type. RESULTS: A total of 23 223 patients underwent either PCI (n = 16 079) or CABG (n = 7144) for coronary artery disease across 28 centers during the study period. Before adjustment, high socioeconomic distress occurred more frequently among CABG patients (DCI ≥80, 12.4% vs 8.42%; P < .001). After multivariable adjustment, high socioeconomic distress was associated with greater odds of receiving PCI, relative to CABG (odds ratio 1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.49; P = .007). High socioeconomic distress was significantly associated with postprocedural mortality (odds ratio 1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26; P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: High socioeconomic distress is associated with greater risk-adjusted odds of receiving PCI, relative to CABG, as well as higher postprocedural mortality. Targeted resource allocation in high DCI areas may help eliminate barriers to CABG.

Staging of multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions: an expert consensus statement from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) to treat multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) may involve single-vessel or multivessel interventions, performed in one or more stages. This consensus statement reviews factors that may influence choice of strategy and includes six recommendations to guide decisions regarding staging of PCI. Every patient who undergoes PCI should receive optimal therapy for coronary disease, ideally before starting the procedure. Multivessel PCI at the time of diagnostic catheterization should be considered only if informed consent included the risks and benefits of multivessel PCI and the risks and benefits of alternative treatments. When considering multivessel PCI, the interventionist should develop a strategy regarding which stenoses to treat or evaluate, and their order, method, and timing. This strategy should maximize patient benefits, minimize patient risk, and consider the factors described in this article. For planned multivessel PCI, additional vessel(s) should be treated only if the first vessel is treated successfully and if anticipated contrast and radiation doses and patient and operator conditions are favorable. After the first stage of the planned multistage PCI, the need for subsequent PCI should be reviewed before it is performed. Third party payers and quality auditors should recognize that multistage PCI for MVCAD is neither an indication of poor quality nor an attempt to increase reimbursement when performed according to recommendations in this article.

ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions American Association for Thoracic Surgery American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Heart Failure Society of America Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A Code of Conduct is published for live case demonstrations.

Dr Greg Dehmer discusses the history and development of this new document, in this area of medical teaching.

Hospital Characteristics and Early Enrollment Trends in the American College of Cardiology Voluntary Public Reporting Program.

Importance: Limited data exist regarding the characteristics of hospitals that do and do not participate in voluntary public reporting programs. Objective: To describe hospital characteristics and trends associated with early participation in the American College of Cardiology (ACC) voluntary reporting program for cardiac catheterization-percutaneous coronary intervention (CathPCI) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registries. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed enrollment trends and characteristics of hospitals that did and did not participate in the ACC voluntary public reporting program. All hospitals reporting procedure data to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI or ICD registries that were eligible for the public reporting program from July 2014 (ie, program launch date) to May 2017 were included. Stepwise logistic regression was used to identify hospital characteristics associated with voluntary participation. Enrollment trends were evaluated considering the date US News & World Report (USNWR) announced that it would credit participating hospitals. Data analysis was performed from March 2017 to January 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital characteristics and participation in the public reporting program. Results: By May 2017, 561 of 1747 eligible hospitals (32.1%) had opted to participate in the program. Enrollment increased from 240 to 376 hospitals (56.7%) 1 month after the USNWR announcement that program participation would be considered as a component of national hospital rankings. Compared with hospitals that did not enroll, program participants had increased median (IQR) procedural volumes for PCI (481 [280-764] procedures vs 332 [186-569] procedures; P < .001) and ICD (114 [56-220] procedures vs 62 [25-124] procedures; P < .001). Compared with nonparticipating hospitals, an increased mean (SD) proportion of participating hospitals adhered to composite discharge medications after PCI (0.96 [0.03] vs 0.92 [0.07]; P < .001) and ICD (0.88 [0.10] vs 0.81 [0.12]; P < .001). Hospital factors associated with enrollment included participation in 5 or more NCDR registries (odds ratio [OR],1.98; 95% CI, 1.24-3.19; P = .005), membership in a larger hospital system (ie, 3-20 hospitals vs ≤2 hospitals in the system: OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.65-3.17; P = .001), participation in an NCDR pilot public reporting program of PCI 30-day readmissions (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 2.19-3.91; P < .001), university affiliation (vs government affiliation: OR, 3.85, 95% CI, 1.03-14.29; P = .045; vs private affiliation: OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.35-3.57; P < .001), Midwest location (vs South: OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.06-2.08; P = .02), and increased comprehensive quality ranking (4 vs 1-2 performance stars in CathPCI: OR, 8.08; 95% CI, 5.07-12.87; P < .001; 4 vs 1 performance star in ICD: OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.48-3.44; P < .001) (C statistic = 0.829). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that one-third of eligible hospitals participated in the ACC voluntary public reporting program and that enrollment increased after the announcement that program participation would be considered by USNWR for hospital rankings. Several hospital characteristics, experience with public reporting, and quality of care were associated with increased odds of participation.

Appropriateness of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis Is Increasing.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement led to the development of appropriate use criteria (AUC) for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis in 2017. This study hypothesized that appropriateness of SAVR improved after publication of AUC. METHODS: All patients undergoing isolated SAVR for severe aortic stenosis in a regional cardiac surgical quality collaborative were evaluated using data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (2011-2021). After excluding endocarditis and emergency cases, appropriateness of SAVR (rarely appropriate, may be appropriate, or appropriate) was assigned to patients by using established criteria. The relationship of appropriateness with publication of AUC was assessed, as was variation in appropriateness over time and by center. RESULTS: Of 3035 patients across 17 centers, 106 (3.5%) underwent SAVR for an indication identified as rarely appropriate or may be appropriate. Patients who underwent SAVR for rarely or may be appropriate indications were significantly more likely to experience operative mortality (5.7% vs 1.6%, P = .001) as well as major morbidity (21.7% vs 10.5%, P < .001). Performance of rarely or may be appropriate SAVR significantly decreased over time (slope -0.51%/year, P trend < .001), and it was decreased after the release of the AUC (before release, 3.83% vs after release, 2.06%; P = .036). Substantial interhospital variation in appropriateness was observed (range of may be or rarely appropriate SAVR, 0%-10%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of isolated SAVR for aortic stenosis was appropriate according to the 2017 AUC. Appropriateness improved after publication of AUC, and this improvement was associated with a significant reduction of major morbidity and mortality.

Percutaneous coronary intervention at centers with and without on-site surgery: a meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Percutaneous coronary interventions are performed at centers without onsite surgery, despite current guidelines discouraging this. OBJECTIVE: To assess literature comparing rates of in-hospital mortality and emergency coronary artery bypass grafting surgery at centers with and without on-site surgery. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of studies published between January 1990 and May 2010 was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Review databases. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of percutaneous coronary intervention performed at centers with and without on-site surgery providing data on in-hospital mortality and emergency bypass were identified. Two study authors independently reviewed the 1029 articles originally identified and selected 40 for analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Study title, time period, indication for angioplasty, and outcomes were extracted manually from all selected studies, and quality of each study was assessed using the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. DATA SYNTHESIS: High-quality studies of percutaneous coronary interventions performed at centers with and without on-site surgery were included. Pooled-effect estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Analyses of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction of 124,074 patients demonstrated no increase in in-hospital mortality (no on-site surgery vs on-site surgery: observed risk, 4.6% vs 7.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.05; I(2) = 0%) or emergency bypass (observed risk, 0.22% vs 1.03%; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.79; I(2) = 20%) at centers without on-site surgery. For nonprimary percutaneous coronary interventions (elective and urgent, n = 914,288), the rates of in-hospital mortality (observed risk, 1.4% vs 2.1%; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.93-1.41; I(2) = 46%) and emergency bypass (observed risk, 0.17% vs 0.29%; OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.52-2.85; I(2) = 5%) were not significantly different at centers without or with on-site surgery. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous coronary interventions performed at centers without on-site surgery, compared with centers with on-site surgery, were not associated with a higher incidence of in-hospital mortality or emergency bypass surgery.

Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention.

CONTEXT: Despite the widespread use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the appropriateness of these procedures in contemporary practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the appropriateness of PCI in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multicenter, prospective study of patients within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry undergoing PCI between July 1, 2009, and September 30, 2010, at 1091 US hospitals. The appropriateness of PCI was adjudicated using the appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization. Results were stratified by whether the procedure was performed for an acute (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or unstable angina with high-risk features) or nonacute indication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of acute and nonacute PCIs classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate; extent of hospital-level variation in inappropriate procedures. RESULTS: Of 500,154 PCIs, 355,417 (71.1%) were for acute indications (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 103,245 [20.6%]; non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 105,708 [21.1%]; high-risk unstable angina, 146,464 [29.3%]), and 144,737 (28.9%) for nonacute indications. For acute indications, 350,469 PCIs (98.6%) were classified as appropriate, 1055 (0.3%) as uncertain, and 3893 (1.1%) as inappropriate. For nonacute indications, 72,911 PCIs (50.4%) were classified as appropriate, 54,988 (38.0%) as uncertain, and 16,838 (11.6%) as inappropriate. The majority of inappropriate PCIs for nonacute indications were performed in patients with no angina (53.8%), low-risk ischemia on noninvasive stress testing (71.6%), or suboptimal (≤1 medication) antianginal therapy (95.8%). Furthermore, although variation in the proportion of inappropriate PCI across hospitals was minimal for acute procedures, there was substantial hospital variation for nonacute procedures (median hospital rate for inappropriate PCI, 10.8%; interquartile range, 6.0%-16.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In this large contemporary US cohort, nearly all acute PCIs were classified as appropriate. For nonacute indications, however, 12% were classified as inappropriate, with substantial variation across hospitals.

Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Standardization of risk is critical in benchmarking and quality improvement efforts for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). In 2018, the CathPCI Registry was updated to include additional variables to better classify higher-risk patients. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to develop a model for predicting in-hospital mortality risk following PCI incorporating these additional variables. METHODS: Data from 706,263 PCIs performed between July 2018 and June 2019 at 1,608 sites were used to develop and validate a new full and pre-catheterization model to predict in-hospital mortality, and a simplified bedside risk score. The sample was randomly split into a development cohort (70%, n = 495,005) and a validation cohort (30%, n = 211,258). The authors created 1,000 bootstrapped samples of the development cohort and used stepwise selection logistic regression on each sample. The final model included variables that were selected in at least 70% of the bootstrapped samples and those identified a priori due to clinical relevance. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality following PCI varied based on clinical presentation. Procedural urgency, cardiovascular instability, and level of consciousness after cardiac arrest were most predictive of in-hospital mortality. The full model performed well, with excellent discrimination (C-index: 0.943) in the validation cohort and good calibration across different clinical and procedural risk cohorts. The median hospital risk-standardized mortality rate was 1.9% and ranged from 1.1% to 3.3% (interquartile range: 1.7% to 2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of mortality following PCI can be predicted in contemporary practice by incorporating variables that reflect clinical acuity. This model, which includes data previously not captured, is a valid instrument for risk stratification and for quality improvement efforts.

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology: Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

Overcoming Obstacles in Designing and Sustaining a High-Quality Cardiovascular Procedure Environment.

Accurate evaluation of the quality of invasive cardiology procedures requires appraisal of case selection, technical performance, and procedural and clinical outcomes. Regrettably, the medical care delivery system poses a number of obstacles to developing and sustaining a high-quality environment. The purposes of this viewpoint are to summarize the most common impediments, followed to summarize the most common impediments, followed by the optimal ways to design and sustain a quality assurance program to overcome these barriers. A 7-step program to create and implement an effective quality assurance program is outlined.

ACC/AHA/ASE/HRS/ISACHD/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/SOPE 2020 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging During the Follow-Up Care of Patients With Congenital Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee and Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Pediatric Echocardiography.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) collaborated with the American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Pediatric Echocardiography to develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for multimodality imaging during the follow-up care of patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). This is the first AUC to address cardiac imaging in adult and pediatric patients with established CHD. A number of common patient scenarios (also termed "indications") and associated assumptions and definitions were developed using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of CHD.1 The indications relate primarily to evaluation before and after cardiac surgery or catheter-based intervention, and they address routine surveillance as well as evaluation of new-onset signs or symptoms. The writing group developed 324 clinical indications, which they separated into 19 tables according to the type of cardiac lesion. Noninvasive cardiac imaging modalities that could potentially be used for these indications were incorporated into the tables, resulting in a total of 1,035 unique scenarios. These scenarios were presented to a separate, independent panel for rating, with each being scored on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 to 3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4 to 6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7 to 9 as "Appropriate." Forty-four percent of the scenarios were rated as Appropriate, 39% as May Be Appropriate, and 17% as Rarely Appropriate. This AUC document will provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with established CHD by identifying the reasonable imaging modality options available for evaluation and surveillance of such patients. It will also serve as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of Rarely Appropriate tests in clinical practice.