Rationale and design of an evidence-based tool to guide preoperative evaluation and management.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, over-testing and over-treatment are recognised causes of excess cost and patient harm. Healthcare value, defined as health outcomes achieved relative to the costs of care, has become a focus to improve the quality and affordability of healthcare. AIM: To describe the rationale for, and development of a standardised clinical preoperative decision-support tool.Program description: An evidence-based, preoperative clinical decision tool was developed to guide preoperative testing and management of high-risk medications.Program evaluation: Patient data before and after implementation of the tool will be analysed to determine its effectiveness in reducing preoperative testing. DISCUSSION: Preoperative testing is an area that presents an opportunity to increase healthcare value and decrease healthcare spending. Guidelines are available to standardise preoperative assessment but their adoption and acceptance into practice has been slow. To systematise preoperative assessment within our healthcare system, we reviewed current published literature and guidelines and synthesised them into an electronic, evidence-based, decision-support tool. After distribution of the tool to clinicians in our healthcare system, we will assess its impact on healthcare value, costs and outcomes. We believe that an evidence-based preoperative tool, seamlessly and efficiently integrated into clinician workflow, can improve preoperative patient care.

Resource utilization and outcome among patients with selective versus nonselective troponin testing.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), troponin testing is effective for diagnosis and prognosis. Troponin testing has now expanded to include patients without suspected ACS. This nonselective troponin testing has unknown consequences for resource utilization and outcome. Therefore, we examined selective versus nonselective troponin testing with respect to patient characteristics, resource utilization, and outcome. METHODS: This retrospective 1-year study included all patients with troponin testing at a U.S. emergency department. Testing was classified as selective (ACS) or nonselective (non-ACS) based on admission ICD-9 codes. Troponin upper reference limit (URL) was ≥99th percentile. RESULTS: Among 47,053 patients, troponin was measured in 9109 (19%) of whom 5764 were hospitalized. Admission diagnosis was non-ACS in 4427 (77%) and ACS in 1337 (23%). Non-ACS patients were older, 71±17 versus 65±16 years, with longer hospital stay, 77 versus 32 h, and greater 1-year mortality 22% versus 6.7%; P<.001. In patients with troponin ≥URL, revascularization was performed in 64 (4.7%) of non-ACS versus 213 (48%) of ACS; P<.001. In patients with troponin 80% of the non-ACS population CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary troponin testing is frequently nonselective. The non-ACS and ACS populations differ significantly regarding clinical characteristics, revascularization rates, and outcomes. Troponin elevation is a powerful predictor of 1-year mortality in non-ACS, this association reveals an opportunity for risk stratification and targeted therapy. KEY QUESTIONS: In patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), troponin testing is effective for diagnosis and prognosis. However, troponin testing has now expanded to include patients without suspected ACS. This nonselective troponin testing has unknown consequences for hospital resource utilization and patient outcome. Our findings demonstrate contemporary troponin testing is largely nonselective (77% of testing was performed in patients without acute coronary syndrome). In comparison to patients with acute coronary syndrome, those with non-acute coronary syndrome are older, with longer hospital stay, lower revascularization rates, and greater 1-year mortality. Troponin elevation identifies a high-risk population in both acute coronary syndrome and non-acute coronary syndrome populations, yet effective treatment for the latter is lacking.

Long-term survival in patients with refractory angina.

AIMS: An increasing number of patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) are not candidates for traditional revascularization and experience angina in spite of excellent medical therapy. Despite limited data regarding the natural history and predictors of adverse outcome, these patients have been considered at high risk for early mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The OPtions In Myocardial Ischemic Syndrome Therapy (OPTIMIST) program at the Minneapolis Heart Institute offers traditional and investigational therapies for patients with refractory angina. A prospective clinical database includes detailed baseline and yearly follow-up information. Death status and cause were determined using the Social Security Death Index, clinical data, and death certificates. Time to death was analysed using survival analysis methods. For 1200 patients, the mean age was 63.5 years (77.5% male) with 72.4% having prior coronary artery bypass grafting, 74.4% prior percutaneous coronary intervention, 72.6% prior myocardial infarction, 78.3% 3-vessel CAD, 23.0% moderate-to-severe left-ventricular (LV) dysfunction, and 32.6% congestive heart failure (CHF). Overall, 241 patients died (20.1%: 71.8% cardiovascular) during a median follow-up 5.1 years (range 0-16, 14.7% over 9). By Kaplan-Meier analysis, mortality was 3.9% (95% CI 2.8-5.0) at 1 year and 28.4% (95% CI 24.9-32.0) at 9 years. Multivariate predictors of all-cause mortality were baseline age, diabetes, angina class, chronic kidney disease, LV dysfunction, and CHF. CONCLUSION: Long-term mortality in patients with refractory angina is lower than previously reported. Therapeutic options for this distinct and growing group of patients should focus on angina relief and improved quality of life.

ST-elevation myocardial infarction: which patients do quality assurance programs include?

BACKGROUND: In the United States, efforts are underway to improve timely access to percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The Joint Commission (TJC) and the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) have developed standardized definitions and clinical performance measures for STEMI. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in 3 quality-assurance registries for STEMI patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: STEMI patients presenting to the Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital (Minneapolis, Minn) are tracked by 3 distinct quality assurance programs: NCDR, TJC, and the level 1 MI registry (a regional system for percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI which includes transfer patients). Over 1 year, we examined consecutive STEMI patients in level 1 and compared them with individuals meeting NCDR and TJC inclusion criteria. Of 501 STEMI patients treated using the level 1 MI protocol, 422 patients had a clear culprit (402 percutaneous coronary intervention, 13 coronary artery bypass grafting, 7 medical management). In the same period, 282 patients met inclusion criteria for NCDR (56% of the level 1 population), and 66 met inclusion criteria for TJC (13% of the level 1 population). Transfer patients (n=380) accounted for 87% of the discrepancy between level 1 and TJC. Pharmacoinvasive percutaneous coronary intervention (n=102) accounted for 47% of the discrepancy between level 1 and NCDR. CONCLUSIONS: Current inclusion criteria for enrollment in STEMI registries are not uniform. This may lead to variable quality assurance outcomes for the same patient cohort and has important implications for standardized quality measurement.

Enhanced external counterpulsation improves systolic blood pressure in patients with refractory angina.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP) is a noninvasive treatment of patients with refractory angina. The immediate hemodynamic effects of EECP are similar to intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, but EECP's effects on standard blood pressure measurements during and after treatment are unknown. METHODS: We evaluated systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) for 108 consecutive patients undergoing EECP. Baseline SBP, DBP, and heart rate were compared for each patient before and after each EECP session, at the end of the course of EECP, and 6 weeks after the final EECP session. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients (mean age 66.4 +/- 11.2 years, 81% male) completed 36.5 +/- 5.1 EECP sessions per patient. Overall, based on 3,586 individual readings, EECP resulted in a decrease in mean SBP of 1.1 +/- 15.3 mm Hg at the end of each EECP session (P < .001), 6.4 +/- 18.2 mm Hg at the end the course of EECP (P < .001), and 3.7 +/- 17.8 mm Hg 6 weeks after the final EECP session (P = .07), with no significant change in DBP or heart rate. Stratifying by baseline SBP, a differential response was demonstrated: SBP increased in the 2 lowest strata (<100 mm Hg and 101-110 mm Hg) and decreased in the remaining strata (P < .001). Stratified differences were sustained after individual EECP sessions, at the end of the course of EECP, and 6 weeks after the final EECP session and were independent of changes in cardiovascular medications. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced external counterpulsation improved SBP in patients with refractory angina. On average, EECP decreased SBP during treatment and follow-up; but for patients with low baseline SBP (<110 mm Hg), EECP increased SBP. The improvements in SBP may contribute to the clinical benefit of EECP.