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.

Failure of Guidelines and Consensus Statements to Recommend Follow-up for Chronic Cardiovascular Conditions

BACKGROUND

Many cardiac conditions require long-term clinical follow-up to monitor progression of disease and tolerance and adherence to therapies. Providers are often unsure as to the frequency of clinical follow-up and who should provide the follow-up. In the absence of formal guidance, patients may be seen more frequently than necessary - thereby limiting clinic space for other patients, or not frequently enough, potentially leading to undetected progression of disease.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent to which guidelines (GL)/consensus statements (CS) provide guidance about appropriate follow-up for common cardiovascular conditions.

METHODS

We identified 31 chronic cardiovascular disease conditions for which long-term (beyond 1 year) follow-up is indicated and used PubMed and professional society websites to identify all relevant GL/CS (n = 33) regarding these chronic cardiac conditions.

RESULTS

Of the 31 cardiac conditions reviewed, GL/CS contained no recommendation or vague recommendation for long-term follow-up for 7 of the conditions. Of the 24 conditions with recommendations for follow-up, 3 had recommendations for imaging follow-up only without mention of clinical follow-up. Of the 33 GL/CS reviewed, 17 made any recommendations about long-term follow-up. When recommendations were made regarding follow-up, they were often vague, using terminology such as "as needed".

CONCLUSIONS

Half of GL/CS fail to provide recommendations for clinical follow-up of common cardiovascular conditions. Writing groups for GL/CS should adopt a standard of routinely including recommendations for follow-up including specific advice about level of expertise needed (eg, primary care physician, cardiologist), need for imaging or testing, and frequency of follow-up.

Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Catheterization After a Three-Day Holiday Weekend Versus a Two-Day Weekend

OBJECTIVES

The study aim is to determine whether invasive cardiac procedures following a 3-day (holiday) weekend have worse outcomes compared with procedures following a 2-day (normal) weekend.

BACKGROUND

Catheterization laboratory schedules after 3-day holiday weekends tend to be overloaded with urgent procedures for patients who have waited up to 3 days. We hypothesized that this would be reflected by more procedural complications in patients undergoing procedures after a 3-day weekend.

METHODS

Invasive cardiac procedures that occurred after a weekend at Geisinger Medical Center from July 2012 to December 2019 were included. Baseline characteristics, presentation, periprocedural variables, adverse events, and clinical outcomes were compared between catheterizations on the day following a 2-day weekend and catheterizations following a 3-day weekend. Independent correlates of adverse events were identified by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 13,704 invasive cardiac procedures performed after a weekend, of which 722 occurred after a 3-day (holiday) weekend. Baseline demographics, presentation, and case volumes were similar between the 2 groups. Procedures after a 3-day weekend were not associated with any differences in in-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke compared with those after a standard 2-day weekend. By univariate analysis, procedural complications were more frequent after a 3-day weekend (15.1% vs 12.3%; P=.03), but this difference was not significant on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 1.22; P=.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiac catheterization procedures performed after a 3-day weekend were not associated with differences in in-patient mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or procedural complications.

Interventional economics provide a roadmap to better patient care

Costs of percutaneous coronary intervention including the index procedure and care in the subsequent 30 days are increased by half for patients who are readmitted, and increased up to two-fold for those who have major adverse events during the initial admission. Many factors "predicting" adverse events and readmission are not modifiable. However, some are modifiable. Interventionalists should focus on those. In addition to using strategies to avoid adverse events, interventionalists should lead teams to implement strategies to prevent readmission. This will require a new nonprocedural focus for interventionalists.