Quality assessment and improvement in interventional cardiology: a position statement of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, part 1: standards for quality assessment and improvement in interventional cardiology

Best Practices for Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Morbidity and Mortality Conferences

Cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) are a critical component of CCL quality improvement programs and are important for the education of cardiology trainees and the lifelong learning of CCL physicians and team members. Despite their fundamental role in the functioning of the CCL, no consensus exists on how CCL MMCs should identify and select cases for review, how they should be conducted, and how results should be used to improve CCL quality. In addition, medicolegal ramifications of CCL MMCs are not well understood. This document from the American College of Cardiology's Interventional Section attempts to clarify current issues and options in the conduct of CCL MMCs and to recommend best practices for their conduct.

SCAI expert consensus update on best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: This statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) in April 2021

The current document commissioned by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) and endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society represents a comprehensive update to the 2012 and 2016 consensus documents on patient-centered best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Comprising updates to staffing and credentialing, as well as evidence-based updates to the pre-, intra-, and post-procedural logistics, clinical standards and patient flow, the document also includes an expanded section on CCL governance, administration, and approach to quality metrics. This update also acknowledges the collaboration with various specialties, including discussion of the heart team approach to management, and working with electrophysiology colleagues in particular. It is hoped that this document will be utilized by hospitals, health systems, as well as regulatory bodies involved in assuring and maintaining quality, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of patient throughput in this high volume area.

Interventional cardiologists' perceptions of percutaneous coronary intervention quality measurement and feedback

BACKGROUND

Interventional cardiologists receive feedback on their clinical care from a variety of sources including registry-based quality measures, case conferences, and informal peer interactions. However, the impact of this feedback on clinical care is unclear.

METHODS

We interviewed interventional cardiologists regarding the use of feedback to improve their care of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients. Interviews were assessed with template analysis using deductive and inductive techniques.

RESULTS

Among 20 interventional cardiologists from private, academic, and Department of Veterans Affairs practice, 85% were male, 75% performed at least 100 PCIs annually, and 55% were in practice for 5 years or more. All reported receiving feedback on their practice, including formal quality measures and peer learning activities. Many respondents were critical of quality measure reporting, citing lack of trust in outcomes measures and poor applicability to clinical care. Some respondents reported the use of process measures such as contrast volume and fluoroscopy time for benchmarking their performance. Case conferences and informal peer feedback were perceived as timelier and more impactful on clinical care. Respondents identified facilitators of successful feedback interventions including transparent processes, respectful and reciprocal peer relationships, and integration of feedback into collective goals. Hierarchy and competitive environments inhibited useful feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite substantial resources dedicated to performance measurement and feedback for PCI, interventional cardiologists perceive existing quality measures to be of only modest value for improving clinical care. Catherization laboratories should seek to integrate quality measures into a holistic quality program that emphasizes peer learning, collective goals and mutual respect.

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.

Management of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications: Algorithms From the 2018 and 2019 Seattle Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications Conference

Complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may have significant impact on patient survival and healthcare costs. PCI procedural complexity and patient risk are increasing, and operators must be prepared to recognize and treat complications, such as perforations, dissections, hemodynamic collapse, no-reflow, and entrapped equipment. Unfortunately, few resources exist to train operators in PCI complication management. Uncertainty regarding complication management could contribute to the undertreatment of patients with high-complexity coronary disease. We, therefore, coordinated the Learning From Complications: How to Be a Better Interventionalist courses to disseminate the collective experience of high-volume PCI operators with extensive experience in chronic total occlusion and high-risk PCI. From these conferences in 2018 and 2019, we developed algorithms that emphasize early recognition, effective treatment, and team-based care of PCI complications. We think that an algorithmic approach will result in a logical and systematic response to life-threatening complications. This construct may be useful for operators who plan to perform complex PCI procedures.

Morbidity and Mortality Conference for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background—

Morbidity and mortality conference is a common educational and quality improvement activity performed in cardiac catheterization laboratories, but best practices for case selection and for maximizing the effectiveness of peer review have not been determined.

Methods and Results—

We reviewed the 10-year percutaneous coronary intervention morbidity and mortality conference experience of an academic medical center. Cases were triggered for review by the occurrence of prespecified procedural events. Summary reports from morbidity and mortality conference discussions were linked to clinical data from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease to compare baseline and procedural characteristics and to assess postdischarge outcomes. Of 11 786 procedures, from 2004 to 2013, 157 (1.3%) were triggered for review. The most frequent triggering events were cardioversion/defibrillation (72, 0.6%), unplanned use of mechanical circulatory support (64, 0.5%), and major dissection (41, 0.3%). Selected procedures were more likely to include high-risk features, such as ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and multivessel disease, and were associated with higher mortality at 30 days. Only a minority of triggering events were caused by controversial or unacceptable physician behavior.

Conclusions—

This 10-year experience outlines the processes for conduct of an effective percutaneous coronary intervention morbidity and mortality conference, including a novel approach to case selection and structured peer review leading to actionable quality interventions. The prespecified clinical triggers, captured in the natural workflow by laboratory staff, identified complex cases that were associated with poor patient outcomes.

Privileging and credentialing for interventional cardiology procedures

Local institutional-specific credentialing and privileging for procedures is an important process for ensuring the quality of care provided by interventional cardiologists. Recently revised standards for coronary intervention and the blossoming of structural heart disease programs have generated controversy over these processes. How standards are set for credentialing and privileging is poorly understood by most interventional cardiologists, including those responsible for credentialing and privileging. Requirements from The Joint Commission dictate how credentialing and privileging is performed at hospitals they accredit. Physicians must be recredentialed every 2 years at each hospital, with privileges renewed at that time. Hospitals must review quality of physicians even more frequently using Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluations. Hospitals must also evaluate the performance of physicians when they join a hospital staff or when they begin performing new procedures using Focused Professional Practice Evaluations. Cardiology department directors and catheterization laboratory directors are responsible for recredentialing and reprivileging members of their departments. Individual physicians are responsible for cooperating with these processes, and for periodic recertification with specialty boards and governmental agencies. We provide specific guidance to help physicians navigate these processes.

Consideration of a new definition of clinically relevant myocardial infarction after coronary revascularization: an expert consensus document from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI)

Numerous definitions have been proposed for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) after coronary revascularization. The universal definition for MI designates post procedural biomarker thresholds for defining percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related MI (type 4a) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related MI (type 5), which are of uncertain prognostic importance. In addition, for both the MI types, cTn is recommended as the biomarker of choice, the prognostic significance of which is less well validated than CK-MB. Widespread adoption of a MI definition not clearly linked to subsequent adverse events such as mortality or heart failure may have serious consequences for the appropriate assessment of devices and therapies, may affect clinical care pathways, and may result in misinterpretation of physician competence. Rather than using an MI definition sensitive for small degrees of myonecrosis (the occurrence of which, based on contemporary large-scale studies, are unlikely to have important clinical consequences), it is instead recommended that a threshold level of biomarker elevation which has been strongly linked to subsequent adverse events in clinical studies be used to define a "clinically relevant MI." The present document introduces a new definition for "clinically relevant MI" after coronary revascularization (PCI or CABG), which is applicable for use in clinical trials, patient care, and quality outcomes assessment.

Risk modelling in quality clinical registries: monitoring lesion treatment failure rate in percutaneous coronary interventions

AIMS

This paper describes the development of a risk adjustment (RA) model predictive of individual lesion treatment failure in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for use in a quality monitoring and improvement program.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospectively collected data for 3972 consecutive revascularisation procedures (5601 lesions) performed between January 2003 and September 2011 were studied. Data on procedures to September 2009 (n=3100) were used to identify factors predictive of lesion treatment failure. Factors identified included lesion risk class (p<0.001), occlusion type (p<0.001), patient age (p=0.001), vessel system (p<0.04), vessel diameter (p<0.001), unstable angina (p=0.003) and presence of major cardiac risk factors (p=0.01). A Bayesian RA model was built using these factors with predictive performance of the model tested on the remaining procedures (area under the receiver operating curve: 0.765, Hosmer-Lemeshow p value: 0.11). Cumulative sum, exponentially weighted moving average and funnel plots were constructed using the RA model and subjectively evaluated.

CONCLUSION

A RA model was developed and applied to SPC monitoring for lesion failure in a PCI database. If linked to appropriate quality improvement governance response protocols, SPC using this RA tool might improve quality control and risk management by identifying variation in performance based on a comparison of observed and expected outcomes.