A quality framework for the role of invasive, non-interventional cardiologists in the present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory: A multidisciplinary SCAI/HFSA expert consensus statement.

The present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) is home to varied practitioners who perform both diagnostic, interventional, and complex invasive procedures. Invasive, non-interventional cardiologists are performing a significant proportion of the work as the CCL environment has evolved. This not only includes those who perform diagnostic-only cardiac catheterization but also heart failure specialists who may be involved in hemodynamic assessment and in mechanical circulatory support and pulmonary hypertension specialists and transplant cardiologists. As such, the training background of those who work in the CCL is varied. While most quality metrics in the CCL are directed towards evaluation of patients who undergo traditional interventional procedures, there has not been a focus upon providing these invasive, noninterventional cardiologists, hospital/CCL administrators, and CCL directors a platform for quality metrics. This document focuses on benchmarking quality for the invasive, noninterventional practice, providing this physician community with guidance towards a patient-centered approach to care, and offering tools to the invasive, noninterventionalists to help their professional growth. This consensus statement aims to establish a foundation upon which the invasive, noninterventional cardiologists can thrive in the CCL environment and work collaboratively with their interventional colleagues while ensuring that the highest quality of care is being delivered to all patients

A quality framework for the role of invasive, non-interventional cardiologists in the present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory: A multidisciplinary SCAI/HFSA expert consensus statement.

The present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) is home to varied practitioners who perform both diagnostic, interventional, and complex invasive procedures. Invasive, non-interventional cardiologists are performing a significant proportion of the work as the CCL environment has evolved. This not only includes those who perform diagnostic-only cardiac catheterization but also heart failure specialists who may be involved in hemodynamic assessment and in mechanical circulatory support and pulmonary hypertension specialists and transplant cardiologists. As such, the training background of those who work in the CCL is varied. While most quality metrics in the CCL are directed towards evaluation of patients who undergo traditional interventional procedures, there has not been a focus upon providing these invasive, noninterventional cardiologists, hospital/CCL administrators, and CCL directors a platform for quality metrics. This document focuses on benchmarking quality for the invasive, noninterventional practice, providing this physician community with guidance towards a patient-centered approach to care, and offering tools to the invasive, noninterventionalists to help their professional growth. This consensus statement aims to establish a foundation upon which the invasive, noninterventional cardiologists can thrive in the CCL environment and work collaboratively with their interventional colleagues while ensuring that the highest quality of care is being delivered to all patients

Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated–receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation. METHODS In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization. RESULTS Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan–Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P = 0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P = 0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage