Content comparison and personcenteredness of standards for quality improvement in cardiovascular health care

Background: Quality standards are important for improving health care by providing compelling evidence for best practice. High quality person-centered health care requires information on patients’ experience of disease and of functioning in daily life. Objective: To analyze and compare the content of five Swedish National Quality Registries (NQRs) and two standard sets of the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) related to cardiovascular diseases. Materials and methods: An analysis of 2588 variables (= data items) of five NQRs—the Swedish Registry of Congenital Heart Disease, Swedish Cardiac Arrest Registry, Swedish Catheter Ablation Registry, Swedish Heart Failure Registry, SWEDEHEART (including four sub-registries) and two ICHOM standard sets–the Heart Failure Standard Set and the Coronary Artery Disease Standard Set. According to the name and definition of each variable, the variables were mapped to Donabedian’s quality criteria, whereby identifying whether they capture health care processes or structures or patients’ health outcomes. Health outcomes were further analyzed whether they were clinician- or patient-reported and whether they capture patients’ physiological functions, anatomical structures or activities and participation. Results: In total, 606 variables addressed process quality criteria (31%), 58 structure quality criteria (3%) and 760 outcome quality criteria (38%). Of the outcomes reported, 85% were reported by clinicians and 15% by patients. Outcome variables addressed mainly ‘Body functions’ (n = 392, 55%) or diseases (n = 209, 29%). Two percent of all documented data captured patients’ lived experience of disease and their daily activities and participation (n = 51, 3% of all variables). Conclusions: Quality standards in the cardiovascular field focus predominately on processes (e.g. treatment) and on body functions-related outcomes. Less attention is given to patients’ lived experience of disease and their daily activities and participation. The results can serve as a starting-point for harmonizing data and developing a common person-centered quality indicator set

Sex differences in investigations and outcomes among patients with type 2 myocardial infarction

Objectives: Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is a heterogenous condition and whether there are differences between women and men is unknown. We evaluated sex differences in clinical characteristics, investigations and outcomes in patients with type 2 MI. Methods: In the Swedish Web based system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) registry, we compared patients admitted to coronary care units with a diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 MI. Sex-stratified Cox regression models evaluated the association with all-cause death in men and women separately. Results: We included 57 264 (median age 73 years, 65% men) and 6485 (median age 78 years, 50% men) patients with type 1 and type 2 MI, respectively. No differences were observed in the proportion of men and women with type 2 MI who underwent echocardiography and coronary angiography, but women were less likely than men to have left ventricular (LV) impairment and obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). Compared with type 1 MI, patients with type 2 MI had higher risk of death regardless of sex (men: adjusted HR 1.55 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.67); women: adjusted HR 1.34 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.45)). In those with type 2 MI, the risk of death was lower for women than men (adjusted HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92) (men, reference)). Conclusions: Type 2 MI occurred in men and women equally and we found no evidence of sex bias in the selection of patients for cardiac investigations. Patients with type 2 MI had worse outcomes, but women were less likely to have obstructive CAD or severe LV impairment and were more likely to survive than men

Multicenter Evaluation of a 0-Hour/1-Hour Algorithm in the Diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction With High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T

Study objectiveWe aim to prospectively validate the diagnostic accuracy of the recently developed 0-h/1-h algorithm, using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) for the early rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction.MethodsWe enrolled patients presenting with suspected acute myocardial infarction and recent (<6 hours) onset of symptoms to the emergency department in a global multicenter diagnostic study. Hs-cTnT (Roche Diagnostics) and sensitive cardiac troponin I (Siemens Healthcare) were measured at presentation and after 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 to 14 hours in a central laboratory. Patient triage according to the predefined hs-cTnT 0-hour/1-hour algorithm (hs-cTnT below 12 ng/L and Δ1 hour below 3 ng/L to rule out; hs-cTnT at least 52 ng/L or Δ1 hour at least 5 ng/L to rule in; remaining patients to the “observational zone”) was compared against a centrally adjudicated final diagnosis by 2 independent cardiologists (reference standard). The final diagnosis was based on all available information, including coronary angiography and echocardiography results, follow-up data, and serial measurements of sensitive cardiac troponin I, whereas adjudicators remained blinded to hs-cTnT.ResultsAmong 1,282 patients enrolled, acute myocardial infarction was the final diagnosis for 213 (16.6%) patients. Applying the hs-cTnT 0-hour/1-hour algorithm, 813 (63.4%) patients were classified as rule out, 184 (14.4%) were classified as rule in, and 285 (22.2%) were triaged to the observational zone. This resulted in a negative predictive value and sensitivity for acute myocardial infarction of 99.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98.2% to 99.7%) and 96.7% (95% CI 93.4% to 98.7%) in the rule-out zone (7 patients with false-negative results), a positive predictive value and specificity for acute myocardial infarction of 77.2% (95% CI 70.4% to 83.0%) and 96.1% (95% CI 94.7% to 97.2%) in the rule-in zone, and a prevalence of acute myocardial infarction of 22.5% in the observational zone.ConclusionThe hs-cTnT 0-hour/1-hour algorithm performs well for early rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction

Personalized diagnosis in suspected myocardial infarction

Background: In suspected myocardial infarction (MI), guidelines recommend using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hscTn)- based approaches. These require fixed assay-specific thresholds and timepoints, without directly integrating clinical information. Using machine-learning techniques including hs-cTn and clinical routine variables, we aimed to build a digital tool to directly estimate the individual probability of MI, allowing for numerous hs-cTn assays. Methods: In 2,575 patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected MI, two ensembles of machine-learning models using single or serial concentrations of six different hs-cTn assays were derived to estimate the individual MI probability ( ARTEMIS model). Discriminative performance of the models was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and logLoss. Model performance was validated in an external cohort with 1688 patients and tested for global generalizability in 13 international cohorts with 23,411 patients. Results: Eleven routinely available variables including age, sex, cardiovascular risk factors, electrocardiography, and hs-cTn were included in the ARTEMIS models. In the validation and generalization cohorts, excellent discriminative performance was confirmed, superior to hs-cTn only. For the serial hs-cTn measurement model, AUC ranged from 0.92 to 0.98. Good calibration was observed. Using a single hs-cTn measurement, the ARTEMIS model allowed direct rule-out of MI with very high and similar safety but up to tripled efficiency compared to the guideline- recommended strategy. Conclusion We developed and validated diagnostic models to accurately estimate the individual probability of MI, which allow for variable hs-cTn use and flexible timing of resampling. Their digital application may provide rapid, safe and efficient personalized patient care

Standardized Outcome Measurement for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Consensus From the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM)

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) outcomes consistently improve when they are routinely measured and provided back to physicians and hospitals. However, few centers around the world systematically track outcomes, and no global standards exist. Furthermore, patient-centered outcomes and longitudinal outcomes are under-represented in current assessments. Methods and Results: The nonprofit International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international Working Group to define a consensus standard set of outcome measures and risk factors for tracking, comparing, and improving the outcomes of CAD care. Members were drawn from 4 continents and 6 countries. Using a modified Delphi method, the ICHOM Working Group defined who should be tracked, what should be measured, and when such measurements should be performed. The ICHOM CAD consensus measures were designed to be relevant for all patients diagnosed with CAD, including those with acute myocardial infarction, angina, and asymptomatic CAD. Thirteen specific outcomes were chosen, including acute complications occurring within 30 days of acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, or percutaneous coronary intervention; and longitudinal outcomes for up to 5 years for patient-reported health status (Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ-7], elements of Rose Dyspnea Score, and Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2]), cardiovascular hospital admissions, cardiovascular procedures, renal failure, and mortality. Baseline demographic, cardiovascular disease, and comorbidity information is included to improve the interpretability of comparisons. Conclusions: ICHOM recommends that this set of outcomes and other patient information be measured for all patients with CAD

β-Blockers and Mortality After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Heart Failure or Ventricular Dysfunction

Background: For acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without heart failure (HF), it is unclear if β-blockers are associated with reduced mortality. Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine the association between β-blocker use and mortality in patients with AMI without HF or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Methods: This cohort study used national English and Welsh registry data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. A total of 179,810 survivors of hospitalization with AMI without HF or LVSD, between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2013 (final follow-up: December 31, 2013), were assessed. Survival-time inverse probability weighting propensity scores and instrumental variable analyses were used to investigate the association between the use of β-blockers and 1-year mortality. Results: Of 91,895 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 87,915 patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 88,542 (96.4%) and 81,933 (93.2%) received β-blockers, respectively. For the entire cohort, with >163,772 person-years of observation, there were 9,373 deaths (5.2%). Unadjusted 1-year mortality was lower for patients who received β-blockers compared with those who did not (4.9% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001). However, after weighting and adjustment, there was no significant difference in mortality between those with and without β-blocker use (average treatment effect [ATE] coefficient: 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.60 to 0.75; p = 0.827). Findings were similar for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: 0.30; 95% CI: −0.98 to 1.58; p = 0.637) and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: −0.07; 95% CI: −0.68 to 0.54; p = 0.819). Conclusions: Among survivors of hospitalization with AMI who did not have HF or LVSD as recorded in the hospital, the use of β-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of death at any time point up to 1 year. (β-Blocker Use and Mortality in Hospital Survivors of Acute Myocardial Infarction Without Heart Failure; NCT02786654)

2020 Update of the quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction : a position paper of the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care : the study group for quality indicators from the ACVC and the NSTE-ACS guideline group

Aims Quality indicators (QIs) are tools to improve the delivery of evidence-base medicine. In 2017, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) developed a set of QIs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which have been evaluated at national and international levels and across different populations. However, an update of these QIs is needed in light of the accumulated experience and the changes in the supporting evidence. Methods and results The ESC methodology for the QI development was used to update the 2017 ACVC QIs. We identified key domains of AMI care, conducted a literature review, developed a list of candidate QIs, and used a modified Delphi method to select the final set of indicators. The same seven domains of AMI care identified by the 2017 Study Group were retained for this update. For each domain, main and secondary QIs were developed reflecting the essential and complementary aspects of care, respectively. Overall, 26 QIs are proposed in this document, compared to 20 in the 2017 set. New QIs are proposed in this document (e.g. the centre use of high-sensitivity troponin), some were retained or modified (e.g. the in-hospital risk assessment), and others were retired in accordance with the changes in evidence [e.g. the proportion of patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) treated with fondaparinux] and the feasibility assessments (e.g. the proportion of patients with NSTEMI whom risk assessment is performed using the GRACE and CRUSADE risk scores). Conclusion Updated QIs for the management of AMI were developed according to contemporary knowledge and accumulated experience. These QIs may be applied to evaluate and improve the quality of AMI care

Multimorbidity and survival for patients with acute myocardial infarction in England and Wales: Latent class analysis of a nationwide population-based cohort

Background: There is limited knowledge of the scale and impact of multimorbidity for patients who have had an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Therefore, this study aimed to determine the extent to which multimorbidity is associated with long-term survival following AMI. Methods and findings: This national observational study included 693,388 patients (median age 70.7 years, 452,896 [65.5%] male) from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (England and Wales) who were admitted with AMI between 1 January 2003 and 30 June 2013. There were 412,809 (59.5%) patients with multimorbidity at the time of admission with AMI, i.e., having at least 1 of the following long-term health conditions: diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, heart failure, renal failure, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, or hypertension. Those with heart failure, renal failure, or cerebrovascular disease had the worst outcomes (39.5 [95% CI 39.0–40.0], 38.2 [27.7–26.8], and 26.6 [25.2–26.4] deaths per 100 person-years, respectively). Latent class analysis revealed 3 multimorbidity phenotype clusters: (1) a high multimorbidity class, with concomitant heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and hypertension, (2) a medium multimorbidity class, with peripheral vascular disease and hypertension, and (3) a low multimorbidity class. Patients in class 1 were less likely to receive pharmacological therapies compared with class 2 and 3 patients (including aspirin, 83.8% versus 87.3% and 87.2%, respectively; β-blockers, 74.0% versus 80.9% and 81.4%; and statins, 80.6% versus 85.9% and 85.2%). Flexible parametric survival modelling indicated that patients in class 1 and class 2 had a 2.4-fold (95% CI 2.3–2.5) and 1.5-fold (95% CI 1.4–1.5) increased risk of death and a loss in life expectancy of 2.89 and 1.52 years, respectively, compared with those in class 3 over the 8.4-year follow-up period. The study was limited to all-cause mortality due to the lack of available cause-specific mortality data. However, we isolated the disease-specific association with mortality by providing the loss in life expectancy following AMI according to multimorbidity phenotype cluster compared with the general age-, sex-, and year-matched population. Conclusions: Multimorbidity among patients with AMI was common, and conferred an accumulative increased risk of death. Three multimorbidity phenotype clusters that were significantly associated with loss in life expectancy were identified and should be a concomitant treatment target to improve cardiovascular outcomes

Multi-lead ST-monitoring in the early assessment of patients with suspected or confirmed unstable coronary artery disease

This study evaluated the use of multi-lead ST-monitoring in the early assessment of patients with suspected or confirmed unstable coronary artery disease (UCAD). At continuous 12-lead ECG (c12ECG), the definition of an ischemic episode as a transient ST-deviation ¡Ý0 for at least 1 minute resulted in a good observer agreement (kappa=0.72) and an acceptable incidence of postural ST-changes. When c12ECG was performed from admission and for 12 hours in 630 patients with suspected UCAD, 16% had ischemic episodes. At 30 days, patients with episodes had a higher risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) (10% vs. 1.5%). In a multivariate analysis, troponin T¡Ý0.10¦Ìg/l and presence of ischemic episodes were independent predictors of cardiac death or MI. When ST-monitoring and troponin T status were combined, patients could be divided into a low-, intermediate-, and high-risk group with 1%, 4% and 12% risk for cardiac death or MI at 30 days of follow up. As a part of a multicenter trial, including patients with UCAD, 1016 patients underwent ST-monitoring with c12ECG or continuous vectorcardiography (cVCG). Ischemia was detected in 32% and 35%, respectively. When the groups with ischemia were compared, the groups were similar with respect to several clinical variables. Thus, these methods identify the same high-risk population. Of the 629 patients treated non-invasively with extended treatment of low-molecular- weight heparin (LMWH) or placebo, 34% had ischemic episodes. In this group at 3 months, patients administered LMWH had a significantly lower risk of death, MI, or revascularization than patients treated with placebo (35.2% vs. 53.4%). In patients without transient ischemic episodes, the outcome in the LMWH and placebo group was similar. Thus, multi-lead monitoring provides important prognostic information early after admission in this population, and seems to identify patients who benefit most from extended antithrombotic treatment