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.

Utilization Rates of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Vascular Procedures Among Patients Undergoing Lower Extremity Amputations in a Rural Community Hospital: A Clinicopathological Correlation

Background:

Significant geographical variations exist in amputation rates and utilization of diagnostic and therapeutic vascular procedures before lower extremity amputations in the United States. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rates of diagnostic and therapeutic vascular procedures in the year prior to amputation in a contemporary population and correlate with pathological findings of the amputation specimens.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was conducted of non-traumatic amputations from 2011 to 2017 at a rural community hospital. We reviewed the proportion of patients undergoing diagnostic (ankle brachial index with duplex ultrasound, computerized tomography angiogram and invasive angiogram) and therapeutic (endovascular and surgical revascularization) vascular procedures in the year prior to amputation. Prevalence of tissue viability and osteomyelitis were evaluated in all amputated specimens and atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASVD) was evaluated in major amputations. We also analyzed primary amputation rates among different subgroups.

Results:

698 patients were included with 248 (36%) major amputations and 450 (64%) minor amputations. Any diagnostic procedure was performed in 59% of the major amputations and 49% of the minor amputations (P = 0.01). Any therapeutic revascularization procedure was performed in 34% of the major amputations and 28% of the minor amputations (P = 0.08). The pathology of major amputation specimens revealed severe ASVD in 57% and mild-moderate ASVD in 27% of specimens. Tissue viability was significantly higher in major amputations (90% vs 30%, P = 0.04) and osteomyelitis was significantly higher in minor amputations (50% vs 14%, P = 0.03). Primary amputations were performed in 66% of major amputations, 72% of minor amputations, 81% with mild to moderate ASVD and 54% with severe ASVD.

Conclusion:

Diagnostic and therapeutic vascular procedures appear under-utilized for patients undergoing lower extremity amputations at a rural community hospital. ASVD rates and tissue viability imply that revascularization could be of significant benefit to avoid major amputation.

Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions 2020 think tank

The society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) think tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2020 think tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease (CHD). Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's emerging leader mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialogue from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI and the industry community in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.