European Society of Cardiology methodology for the development of quality indicators for the quantification of cardiovascular care and outcomes

European Society of Cardiology quality indicators update for the care and outcomes of adults with heart failure. The Heart Failure Association of the ESC

AIMS

To update the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the care and outcomes of adults with heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Working Group comprised experts in heart failure including members of the ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force for heart failure, members of the Heart Failure Association, and a patient representative. We followed the ESC methodology for QI development. The 2023 focused guideline update was reviewed to assess the suitability of the recommendations with strongest association with benefit and harm against the ESC criteria for QIs. All the new proposed QIs were individually graded by each panellist via online questionnaires for both validity and feasibility. The existing heart failure QIs also underwent voting to 'keep', 'remove' or 'modify'. Five domains of care for the management of heart failure were identified: (1) structural QIs, (2) patient assessment, (3) initial treatment, (4) therapy optimization, and (5) patient health-related quality of life. In total, 14 'main' and 3 'secondary' QIs were selected across the five domains.

CONCLUSION

This document provides an update of the previously published ESC QIs for heart failure to ensure that these measures are aligned with contemporary evidence. The QIs may be used to quantify adherence to clinical practice as recommended in guidelines to improve the care and outcomes of patients with heart failure.

The effect of audit and feedback and implementation support on guideline adherence and patient outcomes in cardiac rehabilitation: a study protocol for an open-label cluster-randomized effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial

BACKGROUND

Providing secondary prevention through structured and comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programmes to patients after a myocardial infarction (MI) reduces mortality and morbidity and improves health-related quality of life. Cardiac rehabilitation has the highest recommendation in current guidelines. While treatment target attainment rates at Swedish cardiac rehabilitation centres is among the highest in Europe, there are considerable differences in service delivery and variations in patient-level outcomes between centres. In this trial, we aim to study whether centre-level guideline adherence and patient-level outcomes across Swedish cardiac rehabilitation centres can be improved through a) regular audit and feedback of cardiac rehabilitation structure and processes through a national quality registry and b) supporting cardiac rehabilitation centres in implementing guidelines on secondary prevention. Furthermore, we aim to evaluate the implementation process and costs.

METHODS

The study is an open-label cluster-randomized effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial including all 78 cardiac rehabilitation centres (attending to approximately 10 000 MI patients/year) that report to the SWEDEHEART registry. The centres will be randomized 1:1:1 to three clusters: 1) reporting cardiac rehabilitation structure and process variables to SWEDEHEART every six months (audit intervention) and being offered implementation support to implement guidelines on secondary prevention (implementation support intervention); 2) audit intervention only; or 3) no intervention offered. Baseline cardiac rehabilitation structure and process variables will be collected. The primary outcome is an adherence score measuring centre-level adherence to secondary prevention guidelines. Secondary outcomes include patient-level secondary prevention risk factor goal attainment at one-year after MI and major adverse coronary outcomes for up to five-years post-MI. Implementation outcomes include barriers and facilitators to guideline adherence evaluated using semi-structured focus-group interviews and relevant questionnaires, as well as costs and cost-effectiveness assessed by a comparative health economic evaluation.

DISCUSSION

Optimizing cardiac rehabilitation centres' delivery of services to meet standards set in guidelines may lead to improvement in cardiovascular risk factors, including lifestyle factors, and ultimately a decrease in morbidity and mortality after MI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT05889416 . Registered 2023-03-23.

Benchmarking System Monitoring on Quality Improvement in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Nationwide Registry in Japan

Background

Quality indicators (QIs) have been developed to improve and standardize care quality in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In Japan, consecutive PCI procedures are registered in a nationwide database (the Japanese Percutaneous Coronary Intervention registry), which introduces a benchmarking system for comparing individual institutional performance against the national average.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the benchmarking system implementation on QI improvement at the hospital level.

Methods

A total of 734,264 PCIs were conducted at 1,194 institutions between January 2019 and December 2021. In January 2018, a web-based benchmarking system encompassing 7 QIs for PCI at the institutional level, including door-to-balloon time and rate of transradial intervention, was introduced. The process by which institutions tracked their QIs was centrally monitored.

Results

During the 3-year study period, the benchmarking system was reviewed at least once at 742 institutions (62.1%) (median 4 times; Q1-Q3: 2-7 times). The institutions that reviewed their records had higher PCI volumes. Among these institutions, although door-to-balloon time was not directly associated, the proportion of transradial intervention increased by 2.3% in the system review group during the initial year compared with 0.7% in their counterparts. However, in the subsequent year, the association between system reviews and QI improvement was attenuated.

Conclusions

The implementation of a benchmarking system, reviewed by participating institutions in Japan, was partially associated with improved QIs during the first year; however, this improvement was attenuated in the subsequent year, highlighting the need for further efforts to develop effective and sustainable interventions to enhance care quality in PCI.

Development of delivery indicators and delivery enablers for cardiovascular disease in the UK: a modified Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Standards to define and measure quality in healthcare for cardiovascular disease risk reduction and secondary prevention are available, but there is a paucity of indicators that could serve as facilitators of structural change at a system level. This research study aimed to develop a range of delivery indicators to help cardiac clinical networks assess delivery of and progress towards cardiovascular disease objectives.

METHODS

This study used an adapted version of the European Society of Cardiology's four-step process for the development of quality indicators. The four steps in this study were as follows: identify critical factors of enablement, construct a list of candidate indicators, select a final set of indicators and assess availability of national data for each indicator. In this iterative process, a core project group of six members was supported by a wider review group of 21 people from the National Health Service (NHS) clinical and management personnel database.

RESULTS

The core project group identified six relevant cardiovascular disease priorities in the NHS Long Term Plan and used an iterative process to identify 21 critical factors that impact on their implementation. A total of 57 potential indicators that could be measures of implementation were developed. The core project group agreed on a set of 38 candidate indicators that were circulated to the review group for rating. Based on these scores, the core project group excluded 5 indicators to arrive at a final set of 33 delivery indicators. National datasets were available for 22 of the final indicators, which were designated as delivery indicators. The remaining 11, for which national datasets were not available but locally available datasets could be used, were designated as delivery enablers.

CONCLUSION

The suite of delivery indicators and delivery enablers for cardiovascular disease could allow a more focused evaluation of factors that impact on delivery of healthcare for cardiovascular disease.

Developing Cardio-Oncology Programs in the New Era: Beyond Ventricular Dysfunction Due to Cancer Treatments

Cardiovascular disease is a common problem in cancer patients that is becoming more widely recognized. This may be a consequence of prior cardiovascular risk factors but could also be secondary to the anticancer treatments. With the goal of offering a multidisciplinary approach to guaranteeing optimal cancer therapy and the early detection of related cardiac diseases, and in light of the recent ESC Cardio-Oncology Guideline recommendations, we developed a Cardio-Oncology unit devoted to the prevention and management of these specific complications. This document brings together important aspects to consider for the development and organization of a Cardio-Oncology program through our own experience and the current evidence.

Cohort profile: Data standards for cardiac rehabilitation structure and processes for the SWEDEHEART cardiac rehabilitation (SWEDEHEART-CR) registry

Data standards for quality registries should be evidence-based and follow guideline recommendations. To optimally monitor quality of care, not only patient-level variables, but also centre-level variables need to be included. Here we describe the development of variables to audit the structure and processes in cardiac rehabilitation for patients after myocardial infarction, and the resulting data standards to be implemented in the Swedish quality registry for cardiac disease, SWEDEHEART. The methodology used for the development of international clinical data standards for the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) was followed. Based on national guidelines for secondary prevention, candidate variables were prepared, after which a multiprofessional expert group on cardiac rehabilitation selected key variables and assured face validity. An external reference group had the role of peer reviewing, ascertaining content validity and test-retest reliability. The process has resulted in 30 data standards to be introduced into the SWEDEHEART cardiac rehabilitation registry and administered on centre-level biannually. The data standards include measures of human resources, centre requirements and process-based metrics. Including registry variables which audit centre-level structure and processes is essential to improve benchmarking and standardize monitoring of quality of care, covering both services provided and patient outcomes.

Development of quality indicators of transfer and transition in adolescents and young adults with congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Quality indicators are crucial in evaluating and comparing the quality of healthcare services. In the case of congenital heart disease, transition programmes for adolescents have been recommended to ensure uninterrupted healthcare and lifelong care. It is necessary to establish quality indicators in order to facilitate the evaluation of programme quality and to allow comparison between different centres. The objective of this study is therefore to develop a set of quality indicators for the transition of adolescents with congenital heart disease.

METHODS

The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was employed in a four-step process to develop a set of quality indicators. First, a literature search was conducted on the dimensions of transitional care, based on which a preliminary set of quality indicators was developed. Second, experts were contacted, and an expert panel was established. Third, the panel members were asked to rate the appropriateness of the quality indicators in a two-round process. Finally, in the fourth step, we evaluated the data by measuring the median and Disagreement Index.

RESULTS

The expert panel consisted of 16 members, congenital cardiologists, nurses, transition experts, patients and research experts. The preliminary set of quality indicators comprised 16 items, categorized in process and structure criteria. Based on the panel's feedback, the set was refined to 12 quality indicators, which were rated as relevant and feasible.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the first attempt to develop quality indicators for transitional care services for adolescents with congenital heart disease. The set of 12 quality indicators was developed based on existing evidence and expert opinion. Further testing is needed to assess the feasibility of these quality indicators in daily practice. If successfully implemented, these quality indicators could allow comparison and facilitate benchmarking of transitional care services for adolescents with congenital heart disease.

Associations of health-related quality of life with major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events for individuals with ischaemic heart disease: systematic review, meta-analysis and evidence mapping

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in individuals with ischaemic heart disease (IHD).

METHODS

Medline(R), Embase, APA PsycINFO and CINAHL (EBSCO) from inception to 3 April 2023 were searched. Studies reporting association of HRQoL, using a generic or cardiac-specific tool, with MACCE or components of MACCE for individuals with IHD were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale to assess the quality of the studies. Descriptive synthesis, evidence mapping and random-effects meta-analysis were performed stratified by HRQoL measures and effect estimates. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Fifty-one articles were included with a total of 134 740 participants from 53 countries. Meta-analysis of 23 studies found that the risk of MACCE increased with lower baseline HeartQoL score (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.93) and Short Form Survey (SF-12) physical component score (PCS) (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.51). Risk of all-cause mortality increased with a lower HeartQoL (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.01), EuroQol 5-dimension (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.22), SF-36 PCS (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.41), SF-36 mental component score (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found an inverse association between baseline values or change in HRQoL and MACCE or components of MACCE in individuals with IHD, albeit with between-study heterogeneity. Standardisation and routine assessment of HRQoL in clinical practice may help risk stratify individuals with IHD for tailored interventions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021234638.

Data standards for atrial fibrillation/flutter and catheter ablation: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart)

AIMS

Standardized data definitions are essential for monitoring and assessment of care and outcomes in observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology aimed to develop contemporary data standards for atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) and catheter ablation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used the EuroHeart methodology for the development of data standards and formed a Working Group comprising 23 experts in AF/AFL and catheter ablation registries, as well as representatives from the European Heart Rhythm Association and EuroHeart. We conducted a systematic literature review of AF/AFL and catheter ablation registries and data standard documents to generate candidate variables. We used a modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on a final variable set. For each variable, the Working Group developed permissible values and definitions, and agreed as to whether the variable was mandatory (Level 1) or additional (Level 2). In total, 70 Level 1 and 92 Level 2 variables were selected and reviewed by a wider Reference Group of 42 experts from 24 countries. The Level 1 variables were implemented into the EuroHeart IT platform as the basis for continuous registration of individual patient data.

CONCLUSION

By means of a structured process and working with international stakeholders, harmonized data standards for AF/AFL and catheter ablation for AF/AFL were developed. In the context of the EuroHeart project, this will facilitate country-level quality of care improvement, international observational research, registry-based RCTs, and post-marketing surveillance of devices and pharmacotherapies.

Efficacy of ablation therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Optimal treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. Therefore, the authors sought to compare the outcomes of ablation therapy versus pharmacological regimens in patients with AF.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes between of ablation and pharmacological therapy in patients with AF. Stroke, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, heart failure (HF), and bleeding were among outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95 % CIs.

Results

The analysis included ~200 000 patients from 4 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant reduction in stroke among patients on ablation therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI (0.43, 0.60), P<0.00001, I2=10%], all-cause mortality [HR 0.64, 95% CI (0.45, 0.93), P=0.02, I2=58%], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.35, 95% CI (0.25, 0.50), P<0.0001, I2=0%], and HF [HR 0.40, 95% CI (0.31, 0.53), P<0.00001, I2=30%]. However, no significant difference was revealed in the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization [HR 1.04, 95% CI (0.88, 1.23), P=0.66, I2=89%] and bleeding [HR 1.11, 95% CI (0.97, 1.27), P=0.13, I2=0%].

Conclusion

Ablation significantly reduces the risk of stroke, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF in AF patients, compared with medical therapy alone, supporting its use in clinical practice.

[Digital guidelines of the twenty-first century : Requirements for the structured development, application and evaluation of medical knowledge]

Until now, clinical guidelines have been understood as generalized representations of clinical knowledge that, based on best available evidence, show the requirements for patient care in specific patient situations. This expert opinion article is intended to discuss how digital guidelines should be designed and which requirements must be met for the structured development, application and evaluation of such guidelines. The digitalization of guidelines must take into account the transformation of analogue text-based guideline information into formats that enable human-machine interaction via user interfaces, that show physicians the requirements for guideline-compliant patient care and that also enable machine storage, machine execution and machine processing of patient data.

Temporal trends in cardiovascular risk factors, lifestyle and secondary preventive medication for patients with myocardial infarction attending cardiac rehabilitation in Sweden 2006-2019: a registry-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Registries have been highlighted as means to improve quality of care. Here, we describe temporal trends in risk factors, lifestyle and preventive medication for patients after myocardial infarction (MI) registered in the quality registry Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART).

DESIGN

A registry-based cohort study.

SETTING

All coronary care units and cardiac rehabilitation (CR) centres in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients attending a CR visit at 1-year post-MI 2006-2019 were included (n=81 363, 18-74 years, 74.7% men).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures at 1-year follow-up included blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)<1.8 mmol/L, persistent smoking, overweight/obesity, central obesity, diabetes prevalence, inadequate physical activity, and prescription of secondary preventive medication. Descriptive statistics and testing for trends were applied.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients attaining the targets for BP<140/90 mmHg increased from 65.2% (2006) to 86.0% (2019), and LDL-C<1.8 mmol/L from 29.8% (2006) to 66.9% (2019, p<0.0001 both). While smoking at the time of MI decreased (32.0% to 26.5%, p<0.0001), persistent smoking at 1 year was unchanged (42.8% to 43.2%, p=0.672) as was the prevalence of overweight/obesity (71.9% to 72.9%, p=0.559). Central obesity (50.5% to 57.0%), diabetes (18.2% to 27.2%) and patients reporting inadequate levels of physical activity (57.0% to 61.5%) increased (p<0.0001 for all). From 2007, >90.0% of patients were prescribed statins and approximately 98% antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker prescription increased from 68.7% (2006) to 80.2% (2019, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

While little change was observed for persistent smoking and overweight/obesity, large improvements were observed for LDL-C and BP target achievements and prescription of preventive medication for Swedish patients after MI 2006-2019. Compared with published results from patients with coronary artery disease in Europe during the same period, these improvements were considerably larger. Continuous auditing and open comparisons of CR outcomes might possibly explain some of the observed improvements and differences.

Optimizing outcomes in heart failure: 2022 and beyond

Although the development of therapies and tools for the improved management of heart failure (HF) continues apace, day-to-day management in clinical practice is often far from ideal. A Cardiovascular Round Table workshop was convened by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) to identify barriers to the optimal implementation of therapies and guidelines and to consider mitigation strategies to improve patient outcomes in the future. Key challenges identified included the complexity of HF itself and its treatment, financial constraints and the perception of HF treatments as costly, failure to meet the needs of patients, suboptimal outpatient management, and the fragmented nature of healthcare systems. It was discussed that ongoing initiatives may help to address some of these barriers, such as changes incorporated into the 2021 ESC HF guideline, ESC Heart Failure Association quality indicators, quality improvement registries (e.g. EuroHeart), new ESC guidelines for patients, and the universal definition of HF. Additional priority action points discussed to promote further improvements included revised definitions of HF 'phenotypes' based on trial data, the development of implementation strategies, improved affordability, greater regulator/payer involvement, increased patient education, further development of patient-reported outcomes, better incorporation of guidelines into primary care systems, and targeted education for primary care practitioners. Finally, it was concluded that overarching changes are needed to improve current HF care models, such as the development of a standardized pathway, with a common adaptable digital backbone, decision-making support, and data integration, to ensure that the model 'learns' as the management of HF continues to evolve.

Quality indicators for anesthesia and perioperative medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Routine monitoring of care quality is fundamental considering the high reported rates of preventable perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, no set of valid and feasible quality indicators is available as the gold standard for comprehensive routine monitoring of the overall quality of perioperative care. The purpose of this review is to describe underlying difficulties, to summarize current trends and initiatives and to outline the perspectives in support of suitable perioperative quality indicators.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most perioperative quality indicators used in the clinical setting are based on low or no evidence. Evidence-based perioperative quality indicators validated for research purposes are not always applicable in routine care. Developing a core set of perioperative quality indicators for clinical practice may benefit from matching feasible routine indicators with evidence-based indicators validated for research, from evaluating additional new indicators, and from including patients' views.

SUMMARY

A core set of valid and feasible quality indicators is essential for monitoring perioperative care quality. The development of such a set may benefit from matching evidence-based indicators with feasible standard indicators and from including patients' views.

Clinical outcome measures in the assessment of impact of pharmacists in cardiology ambulatory care: A systematic review

AIMS

Pharmacists are involved in the care of patients with cardiac disease within the ambulatory setting across multiple modes of delivery and practice settings. There is a lack of consensus surrounding the assessments used to measure the impact of pharmacist care. This heterogeneity may undermine confidence and limit utilisation of pharmacists in cardiology ambulatory care. A systematic review was conducted to understand how pharmacist interventions in cardiology ambulatory care were assessed and the impacts of these interventions on patient-centred outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A comprehensive search was conducted of MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Register of Randomised Controlled Trials and EMBASE from 2000 to 2020 with search terms involving pharmacist interventions among cardiology patients in the ambulatory care setting; with studies restricted to randomised controlled trials. Search results were independently screened by two reviewers. The Cochrane Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials tool was used for quality assessment of the included studies. Assessments of pharmacist impact were analysed and compared to established quality indicators of cardiology care. The search produced 3380 individual studies, following screening, 26 studies involving 9013 participants met inclusion criteria. Across the 26 included studies, eleven different intervention types were identified. Four main outcome measures assessing the impact of these interventions were identified: direct measure of cardiovascular disease risk factor, major adverse cardiovascular events, medication adherence, validated risk score for cardiovascular events. There was a high degree of variance in both the way these interventions influenced the outcome as well the outcome measures selected to assess the impact of the intervention. Of the 26 studies, sixteen listed positive impacts on primary outcomes and the remaining 10 listed neutral effects.

CONCLUSION

Several outcome measures have been used to assess the impact of pharmacist intervention in cardiology ambulatory care. Aligning outcome measures with known indicators of cardiology care quality, as well as more detailed descriptions of intervention, will provide clinicians vital information in designing effective and measurable interventions in cardiology ambulatory care.

Methodology for the development of international clinical data standards for common cardiovascular conditions: European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart)

AIMS

Data standards are consensual specifications for the representation of data arising from different sources. If provided with internationally harmonized variables, permissible values, and clinical definitions, they have the potential to enable reliable between- and within-country analysis of care and outcomes. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) is a European Society of Cardiology project that allows participating countries to collect patient data to undertake quality improvement, observational studies, drug and device surveillance, and registry-based randomized controlled trials for cardiovascular conditions. This paper describes the methodology for development of harmonized data standards for EuroHeart.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We adopted a five-step process for the development of harmonized data standards. The process includes (i) identification of clinical domains for data standard development by evaluating specific cardiovascular conditions with high prevalence and opportunities for quality improvement; (ii) construction of data standard specifications by systematic review of the literature; (iii) selection of variables by a domain-specific Working Group using a modified Delphi method; (iv) validation of data standards by a domain-specific Reference Group; and (v) implementation of the developed data standards into an IT platform.

CONCLUSION

This paper describes the approach adopted by EuroHeart for the development of clinical data standards for cardiovascular disease. The methodology has been developed and is used by EuroHeart to create a suite of international data standards for cardiovascular diseases. The EuroHeart data standards may be used to systematically capture individual patient data about clinical care and for research.

European Society of Cardiology quality indicators for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death

To develop a suite of quality indicators (QIs) for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). The Working Group comprised experts in heart rhythm management including Task Force members of the 2022 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with VA and the prevention of SCD, members of the European Heart Rhythm Association, international experts, and a patient representative. We followed the ESC methodology for QI development, which involves (i) the identification of the key domains of care for the management of patients with VA and the prevention of SCD by constructing a conceptual framework of care, (ii) the development of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature, (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs using a modified-Delphi method, and (iv) the evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. We identified eight domains of care for the management of patients with VA and the prevention of SCD: (i) structural framework, (ii) screening and diagnosis, (iii) risk stratification, (iv) patient education and lifestyle modification, (v) pharmacological treatment, (vi) device therapy, (vii) catheter ablation, and (viii) outcomes, which included 17 main and 4 secondary QIs across these domains. Following a standardized methodology, we developed 21 QIs for the management of patients with VA and the prevention of SCD. The implementation of these QIs will improve the care and outcomes of patients with VA and contribute to the prevention of SCD.

European Society of Cardiology quality indicators for the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in cancer treatment

AIMS

To develop quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We followed the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) methodology for QI development which comprises (i) identifying the key domains of care for the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in patients on cancer treatment, (ii) performing a systematic review of the literature to develop candidate QIs, and (iii) selecting of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi process. Work was undertaken in parallel with the writing of the 2022 ESC Guidelines on Cardio-Oncology and in collaboration with the European Haematology Association, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. In total, 5 main and 9 secondary QIs were selected across five domains of care: (i) Structural framework, (ii) Baseline cardiovascular risk assessment, (iii) Cancer therapy related cardiovascular toxicity, (iv) Predictors of outcomes, and (v) Monitoring of cardiovascular complications during cancer therapy.

CONCLUSION

We present the ESC Cardio-Oncology QIs with their development process and provide an overview of the scientific rationale for their selection. These indicators are aimed at quantifying and improving the adherence to guideline-recommended clinical practice and improving patient outcomes.

Structural components for the development of a heart failure network

Diagnosis and treatment of heart failure (HF) is challenging, and development of specialized HF networks is mandatory to warrant broad access to guideline directed therapies for patients. Numerous national cardiovascular societies recommend a three-level association of health care providers. This comprises tertiary academic centres, specialized HF clinics and specialized general cardiologists to cover the large spectrum of HF severity and entities. Although this idea of a multi-level care is widely accepted, optimal approach to build and implement a HF network service needs further definition. The core principle is that of network healthcare facilities that also consider regional peculiarities and that implements academic standards, quality indicators (QIs), interdisciplinarity and reimbursement strategies. These determinants of trans-sectoral healthcare need to be embedded in a network that provides sustainability and that incorporates QIs to objectify the efficacy of specific measures. The basis of a HF-network should be a certification system of the respective national HF association to warrant guideline standards and to prevent development of regional hierarchies or dependencies between members. This nationwide framework needs to be complemented by a federal system of regional networks, which also takes local demands into account. These regional units should incorporate digital communication and interaction pathways, structured educational programmes, certified telehealth concepts and follow-up algorithms to meet the requirements of sustainability and efficacy. We here summarize different components of HF networks and introduce the structure and development philosophy of the RUHR-HF-network that constitutes the first certified HF-clinics-network in the Ruhr area-the largest metropolitan area in Germany.

EURObservational Research Programme: a bibliometric assessment of its scientific output

AIMS

Given the lack of reliable observational data, a network of volunteer centres, and standardized methodological procedures, the European Society of Cardiology EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) was set up to provide a better understanding of real-world cardiovascular care and outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the scientific impact of EORP using a bibliometric approach.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We collected data for each individual publication and for each individual journal with at least one EORP publication. Bibliometric indicators evaluating research performance were categorized into those evaluating EORP publications (publication-based indicators) and those assessing the journals where those papers were published (journal-based indicators). During the first ∼11 years since its inception, we found that EORP produced 189 publications, with most published in journals in the first quartile (60.9%) or the second quartile (33.5%) of the Web of Science Journal Citation Report. The total number of citations to EORP publications was 9630 (average citation per publication of 51, h-index of 54, and 29 EORP publications with ≥100 citations). Of EORP publications, 20 had an Altmetric Attention Score >50 and 9 had a score >100. A total of 52 EORP papers have been cited 65 times in ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines between 2013 and 2021.

CONCLUSION

EORP registries have contributed to impactful scientific knowledge. The high-quality metrics highlight the relevance of the EORP international cardiovascular registries to the academic community. Efforts are needed to support this, and other programmes aimed at delivering real-world evidence from independent patient data of cardiovascular care and outcomes across multiple geographies.

Association between heart failure quality of care and mortality: a population-based cohort study using nationwide registries

AIMS

To evaluate the quality of heart failure (HF) care using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) quality indicators (QIs) for HF and to assess whether better quality of care is associated with improved outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a nationwide cohort study using the Swedish HF registry, consisting of patients with any type of HF at their first outpatient visit or hospitalization. Independent participant data for quality of HF care was evaluated against the ESC QIs for HF, and association with mortality estimated using multivariable Cox regression. In total, 43 704 patients from 80 hospitals across Sweden enrolled between 2013-2019 were included, with median follow-up 23.6 months. Of the 16 QIs for HF, 13 could be measured and 5 were inversely associated with all-cause mortality during follow-up. Higher attainment (≥50% vs. <50% attainment) of the composite opportunity-based score (combination of QIs into a single score) for patients with reduced ejection fraction was associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81; 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.91). Attainment of the composite score was less in the outpatient than inpatient setting (adjusted odds ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.99). Quality of care varied across hospitals, with assessment of health-related quality of life being the indicator with the widest variation in attainment (interquartile range 61.7%).

CONCLUSION

Quality of HF care may be measured using the ESC HF QIs. In Sweden, attainment of HF care evaluated using the QIs demonstrated between and within hospital variation, and many QIs were inversely associated with mortality.

European Society of Cardiology Quality Indicators for the Cardiovascular Preoperative Assessment and Management of patients considered for non-cardiac surgery. Developed in collaboration with the European Society of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care

AIMS

To establish a set of quality indicators (QIs) for the cardiovascular (CV) assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Quality Indicator Committee of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Society of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care (ESAIC) in collaboration with Task Force members of the 2022 ESC Guidelines on CV assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery followed the ESC methodology for QI development. This included 1) identification, by constructing a conceptual framework of care, of domains of the CV assessment and management of patients with risk factors or established cardiovascular disease (CVD) who are considered for or undergoing non-cardiac surgery, 2) development of candidate QIs following a systematic literature review, 3) selection of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi method, 4) evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. In total, eight main and nine secondary QIs were selected across six domains: 1) Structural framework (written policy), 2) Patient education and quality of life (CV risk discussion), 3) Peri-operative risk assessment (indication for diagnostic tests), 4) Peri-operative risk mitigation (use of hospital therapies), 5) Follow-up (post-discharge assessment) and 6) Outcomes (major CV events).

CONCLUSION

We present the 2022 ESC/ESAIC QIs for the CV assessment and management of patients with risk factors or established CVD who are considered for or are undergoing non-cardiac surgery. These indicators are supported by evidence from the literature, underpinned by expert consensus and align with 2022 ESC Guidelines on CV assessment and management of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

Data standards for acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart)

Standardized data definitions are essential for monitoring and benchmarking the quality of care and patient outcomes in observational studies and randomized controlled trials. There are no contemporary pan-European data standards for the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aimed to develop such data standards for ACS and PCI. Following a systematic review of the literature on ACS and PCI data standards and evaluation of contemporary ACS and PCI registries, we undertook a modified Delphi process involving clinical and registry experts from 11 European countries, as well as representatives from relevant ESC Associations, including the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC). This resulted in final sets of 68 and 84 'mandatory' variables and several catalogues of optional variables for ACS and PCI, respectively. Data definitions were provided for these variables, which have been programmed as the basis for continuous registration of individual patient data in the online EuroHeart IT platform. By means of a structured process and the interaction with major stakeholders, internationally harmonized data standards for ACS and PCI have been developed. In the context of the EuroHeart project, this will facilitate country-level quality of care improvement, international observational research, registry-based randomized trials, and post-marketing surveillance of devices and pharmacotherapies.

Data standards for heart failure: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart)

Standardized data definitions are essential for assessing the quality of care and patient outcomes in observational studies and randomized controlled trials. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) aims to create contemporary pan-European data standards for cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure (HF). We followed the EuroHeart methodology for cardiovascular data standard development. A Working Group including experts in HF registries, representatives from the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, and the EuroHeart was formed. Using Embase and Medline (2016-21), we conducted a systematic review of the literature on data standards, registries, and trials to identify variables pertinent to HF. A modified Delphi method was used to reach a consensus on the final set of variables. For each variable, the Working Group developed data definitions and agreed on whether it was mandatory (Level 1) or additional (Level 2). In total, 84 Level 1 and 79 Level 2 variables were selected for nine domains of HF care. These variables were reviewed by an international Reference Group with the Level 1 variables providing the dataset for registration of patients with HF on the EuroHeart IT platform. By means of a structured process and interaction with international stakeholders, harmonized data standards for HF have been developed. In the context of the EuroHeart, this will facilitate quality improvement, international observational research, registry-based randomized trials, and post-marketing surveillance of devices and pharmacotherapies across Europe.

European Society of Cardiology Quality Indicators for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: developed by the Working Group for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Quality Indicators in collaboration with the European Association for Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology

AIMS

To develop a set of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the care and outcomes for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Quality Indicator Committee of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) formed the Working Group for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Quality Indicators in collaboration with Task Force members of the 2021 ESC Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice and the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC). We followed the ESC methodology for QI development, which involved (i) the identification of the key domains of care for ASCVD prevention by constructing a conceptual framework of care, (ii) the development of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature, (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi method, and (iv) the evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. In total, 17 main and 14 secondary QIs were selected across six domains of care for ASCVD prevention: (i) structural framework, (ii) risk assessment, (iii) care for people at risk for ASCVD, (iv) care for patients with established ASCVD, (v) patient education and experience, and (vi) outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We present the 2021 ESC QIs for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, which have been co-constructed with EAPC using the ESC methodology for QI development. These indicators are supported by evidence from the literature, underpinned by expert consensus and aligned with the 2021 ESC Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice to offer a mechanism for the evaluation of ASCVD prevention care and outcomes.

Selecting Performance Indicators and Targets in Health Care: An International Scoping Review and Standardized Process Framework

Objective

Health care organizations monitor hundreds of performance indicators. It is unclear what processes and criteria organizations use to identify the indicators they use, who is involved in these processes, how performance targets are set, and what the impacts of these processes are. The purpose of this study is to synthesize international approaches to indicator selection and develop a standardized process framework.

Methods

Using the PubMed and Web of Science search engines, a scoping review of peer reviewed and grey literature following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted to identify documents describing indicator selection processes used by health systems. English-language papers from 11 countries published from 2010 to 2020 were included. Papers were thematically analyzed to develop a standardized process framework.

Results

The review included 33 peer-reviewed papers and 11 grey-literature documents. While there are common practices used in health care to select indicators, no single standardized process framework for indicator selection exists. Arbitrary or incomplete indicator selection processes risk over-measurement, lack of alignment with strategic and operational goals, lack of support by end-users, and paralyzed decision-making ability. By consolidating international practices, we developed the 5-P indicator selection process framework to mitigate process risks and support high-quality indicator selection processes.

Conclusion

The 5-P indicator selection process framework consists of five domains and 17 elements, and offers health care agencies a practical structure they can use to design indicator selection processes. The framework also provides researchers with a basis by which the implementation of these processes may be evaluated.

Quality of acute myocardial infarction care in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic: linked nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is uncertain. We aimed to compare quality of AMI care in England and Wales during and before the COVID-19 pandemic using the 2020 European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care quality indicators (QIs) for AMI.

METHODS

Cohort study of linked data from the AMI and the percutaneous coronary intervention registries in England and Wales between 1 January 2017 and 27 May 2020 (representing 236 743 patients from 186 hospitals). At the patient level, the likelihood of attainment for each QI compared with pre COVID-19 was calculated using logistic regression. The date of the first national lockdown in England and Wales (23 March 2020) was chosen for time series comparisons.

RESULTS

There were 10 749 admissions with AMI after 23 March 2020. Compared with before the lockdown, patients admitted with AMI during the first wave had similar age (mean 68.0 vs 69.0 years), with no major differences in baseline characteristics (history of diabetes (25% vs 26%), renal failure (6.4% vs 6.9%), heart failure (5.8% vs 6.4%) and previous myocardial infarction (22.9% vs 23.7%)), and less frequently had high Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events risk scores (43.6% vs 48.6%). There was an improvement in attainment for 10 (62.5%) of the 16 measured QIs including a composite QI (43.8% to 45.2%, OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10) during, compared with before, the lockdown.

CONCLUSION

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and Wales, quality of care for AMI as measured against international standards did not worsen, but improved modestly.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

European Society of Cardiology Quality Indicators for the care and outcomes of cardiac pacing: developed by the Working Group for Cardiac Pacing Quality Indicators in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology

AIMS

To develop a suite of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the care and outcomes for adults undergoing cardiac pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Under the auspice of the Clinical Practice Guideline Quality Indicator Committee of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the Working Group for cardiac pacing QIs was formed. The Group comprised Task Force members of the 2021 ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines on Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, members of the European Heart Rhythm Association, international cardiac device experts, and patient representatives. We followed the ESC methodology for QI development, which involved (i) the identification of the key domains of care by constructing a conceptual framework of the management of patients receiving cardiac pacing, (ii) the development of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature, (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs using a modified-Delphi method, and (iv) the evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. Four domains of care were identified: (i) structural framework, (ii) patient assessment, (iii) pacing strategy, and (iv) clinical outcomes. In total, seven main and four secondary QIs were selected across these domains and were embedded within the 2021 ESC Guidelines on Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization therapy.

CONCLUSION

By way of a standardized process, 11 QIs for cardiac pacing were developed. These indicators may be used to quantify adherence to guideline-recommended clinical practice and have the potential to improve the care and outcomes of patients receiving cardiac pacemakers.

European Society of Cardiology quality indicators for the care and outcomes of adults with heart failure. Developed by the Working Group for Heart Failure Quality Indicators in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

AIMS

To develop a suite of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the quality of care for adults with heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We followed the ESC methodology for QI development, which involved (i) the identification of the key domains of care for the management of HF by constructing a conceptual framework of HF care, (ii) the development of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature, (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi method, and (iv) the evaluation of the feasibility of the developed QIs. The Working Group comprised experts in HF management including Task Force members of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Clinical Practice Guidelines for HF, members of the Heart Failure Association (HFA), Quality Indicator Committee and a patient representative. In total, 12 main and 4 secondary QIs were selected across five domains of care for the management of HF: (1) structural framework, (2) patient assessment, (3) initial treatment, (4) therapy optimization, and (5) assessment of patient health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSION

We present the ESC HFA QIs for HF, describe their development process and provide the scientific rationale for their selection. The indicators may be used to quantify and improve adherence to guideline-recommended clinical practice and thus improve patient outcomes.