Morbidity and Mortality Conference for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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.

Making the most of a Morbidity and Mortality meeting

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and Mortality meetings (M&Ms) are a fundamental element of surgical practice. However, there has been little investigation into best practices, to maximise education and improvement outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

Create a new, evidence-based M&M methodology, that facilitates standardised analysis of errors in a non-judgemental fashion, and highlights areas for improvement.

METHODS

A Quality Improvement (QI) methodology was used. This project encompassed a literature review and two sequential QI cycles. A literature review and initial survey highlighted best practice and identified areas for improvement. From this information, a new standardised format was created, which centred around a new modified Fishbone framework, incorporating the London Protocol methodology. The project then sequentially tested new formats, with feedback collected for every new format.

RESULTS

The literature review and surveys guided improvement of the M&M. The need for standardisation was highlighted. The new PowerPoint template and modified Fishbone ensured presentations and analysis were consistent and systematic. Participants reported that M&Ms were more engaging, interactive and structured, ensuring improved discussion of errors. The modified Fishbone framework reinforced a blame-free, system-focused analysis.

CONCLUSION

M&Ms are a critical aspect of patient safety. This project utilised simple QI tools to encourage collaborative reflection, learning and improvement.

Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available.

RESULTS

Of 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.

Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part II: Processes for Reliable Quality Improvement

After decades of experience supporting surgical quality and safety by the American College of Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Program was developed to help hospitals improve surgical quality, safety, and reliability. This review is the second of a 3-part review aiming to synthesize the evidence supporting the main principles of the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Program. Evidence was systematically reviewed for 5 principles: case review, peer review, credentialing and privileging, data for surveillance, and continuous quality improvement using data. MEDLINE was searched for articles published from inception to January 2019 and 2 reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in a hierarchical fashion, extracted data, and summarized results in a narrative fashion. A total of 9,098 studies across the 5 principles were identified. After exclusion criteria, a total of 184 studies in systematic reviews and primary studies were included for assessment. The identified literature supports the importance of standardized processes and systems to identify problems and improve quality of care.

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.

Characteristics of the Quality Improvement Content of Cardiac Catheterization Peer Reviews in the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program

IMPORTANCE

Peer review is recommended for quality assessment in all cardiac catheterization programs, but, to our knowledge, the content of peer reviews and the potential for quality improvement has not been described.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the quality improvement content of cardiac catheterization peer reviews.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study used retrospective case review of diagnostic angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures to characterize the major adverse event review process of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) program from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016. Data review and analysis took place from November 2017 to August 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Percentage of peer reviews reporting substandard care and opportunities for quality improvement.

RESULTS

A total of 196 643 diagnostic coronary angiograms and 62 576 percutaneous coronary interventions were performed in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of these, 168 (0.1%) were triggered for review because of a self-reported major adverse event during the procedure. Of 152 cases with complete peer review data, care was adjudicated as not meeting the standard of care in 25 cases (16.4%). Concerns about operator judgment were identified in 46 cases (30.3%), about case selection in 26 (17.1%), about trainee supervision in 21 (13.8%), and about technical performance in 46 (30.3%). Reviewers made recommendations to improve operator performance in 63 cases (41.4%) and catheterization laboratory or hospital processes in 58 (38.2%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

While substandard care is infrequently identified in peer review of catheterization laboratory complications in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the process often generates recommendations for quality improvement. Peer review programs should focus on identifying quality improvement opportunities and providing meaningful feedback to operators.

Incidence and outcome of peri-procedural cardiogenic shock: results from the international Euro Heart Survey PCI registry

BACKGROUND

There is a large body of literature on acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. However, very little is known about patients who are initially haemodynamically stable and develop cardiogenic shock during percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

A total of 47,407 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled in the PCI Registry of the Euro Heart Survey Programme. We analysed interventions with peri-procedural complications that were classified as 'shock induced by procedure' on the case report form. Clinical and procedural characteristics as well as hospital outcomes of haemodynamically stable patients who developed cardiogenic shock during percutaneous coronary intervention were evaluated. Patients with haemodynamic instability at presentation prior to intervention were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients (0.2%) developed cardiogenic shock as a complication of percutaneous coronary intervention. The majority of cases comprised acute coronary syndrome (60.3%) with complex lesions (93.1%). Most patients had multi-vessel disease (82.1%) and an ejection fraction less than 40% (58.1%). In the multivariate analysis, left main disease (odds ratio (OR) 9.51), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (OR 5.31) and multi-vessel disease without left main involvement (OR 3.32) were the strongest independent predictors of peri-procedural cardiogenic shock. Among these patients procedural success was low (66.1%) and in-hospital mortality was very high (39.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world registry the rate of haemodynamically stable patients who developed cardiogenic shock during percutaneous coronary intervention was very low. Patients at a priori high risk were more likely to be affected by this complication. The in-hospital mortality rate of these patients was very high.