Publications (64) View all
-
Article: Comparison of Clinical Interpretation with Visual Assessment and Quantitative Coronary Angiography in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Contemporary Practice: The Assessing Angiography (A2) Project.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Studies conducted decades ago described substantial disagreement and errors in physicians' angiographic interpretation of coronary stenosis severity. Despite the potential implications of such findings, no large-scale efforts to measure or improve clinical interpretation were subsequently made. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared clinical interpretation of stenosis severity in coronary lesions with an independent assessment using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 175 randomly selected patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at 7 U.S. hospitals in 2011. To assess agreement, we calculated mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA and a Cohen's weighted kappa statistic. Of 216 treated lesions, median percent diameter stenosis was 80.0% (Q1 and Q3, 80.0 and 90.0%) with 213 (98.6%) assessed as ≥70%. Mean difference in percent diameter stenosis between clinical interpretation and QCA was +8.2 ± 8.4%, reflecting an average higher percent diameter stenosis by clinical interpretation (P<0.001). A weighted kappa of 0.27 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.36) was found between the 2 measurements. Of 213 lesions considered ≥70% by clinical interpretation, 56 (26.3%) were <70% by QCA though none was <50%. Differences between the 2 measurements were largest for intermediate lesions by QCA (50 to <70%) with variation existing across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians tended to assess coronary lesions treated with PCI as more severe than measurements by QCA. Almost all treated lesions were ≥70% by clinical interpretation, while approximately a quarter were <70% by QCA. These findings suggest opportunities to improve clinical interpretation of coronary angiography.Circulation 03/2013; · 14.74 Impact Factor -
Article: The NCDR CathPCI Registry: a US national perspective on care and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AIMS:: The NCDR CathPCI Registry collects detailed clinical, process-of-care and outcomes data for patients undergoing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the USA. The registry contributes to quality of care by providing data feedback on a wide range of performance metrics to participating centres and by facilitating local and national quality improvement efforts. INTERVENTIONS:: No treatments are mandated, participating centres receive routine quality-of-care and outcomes performance feedback reports and access to a quality dashboard for personalized performance reports. POPULATION:: Patients undergoing cardiac catheterization and PCI are retrospectively identified. No informed consent is required, as data are anonymised. From inception in 1998, more than 12 million records have been submitted from 1577 participating US centres. BASELINE DATA:: Approximately 250 fields encompassing patient demographics, medical history and risk factors, hospital presentation, initial cardiac status, procedural details, medications, laboratory values, and in-hospital outcomes. Linkages with outside sources of data have permitted longitudinal outcomes assessment in some cases. Centre personnel enter the data into the registry, in some cases facilitated by software vendors. There are non-financial incentives for centre participation. Data completeness is noteworthy with most fields missing at rates less than 5%. A comprehensive data quality program is employed to enhance data validity. ENDPOINTS:: Main outcome measures include quality process metrics and in-hospital patient outcomes. Data are available for research by application to: http://www.ncdr.com.Heart (British Cardiac Society) 01/2013; · 4.22 Impact Factor -
Article: ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care
The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 07/2012; 144(1):39-71. · 3.41 Impact Factor -
Article: ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions American Association for Thoracic Surgery American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Heart Failure Society of America Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine Society of C
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 06/2012; 80(3):E50-81. · 2.29 Impact Factor -
Article: ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research.Journal of the American College of Cardiology 05/2012; 59(22):1995-2027. · 14.16 Impact Factor
