Views of Appropriate Use Criteria for catheterization and percutaneous coronary revascularization by practicing interventional cardiologists: Results of a survey of American College of Cardiology Interventional Section members

Computational fluid dynamics as supporting technology for coronary artery disease diagnosis and treatment: an international survey

Background

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is emerging as an effective technology able to improve procedural outcomes and enhance clinical decision-making in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The present study aims to assess the state of knowledge, use and clinical acceptability of CFD in the diagnosis and treatment of CAD.

Methods

We realized a 20-questions international, anonymous, cross-sectional survey to cardiologists to test their knowledge and confidence on CFD as a technology applied to patients suffering from CAD. Responses were recorded between May 18, 2022, and June 12, 2022.

Results

A total of 466 interventional cardiologists (mean age 48.4 ± 8.3 years, males 362), from 42 different countries completed the survey, for a response rate of 45.9%. Of these, 66.6% declared to be familiar with the term CFD, especially for optimization of existing interventional techniques (16.1%) and assessment of hemodynamic quantities related with CAD (13.7%). About 30% of respondents correctly answered to the questions exploring their knowledge on the pathophysiological role of some CFD-derived quantities such as wall shear stress and helical flow in coronary arteries. Among respondents, 85.9% would consider patient-specific CFD-based analysis in daily interventional practice while 94.2% declared to be interested in receiving a brief foundation course on the basic CFD principles. Finally, 87.7% of respondents declared to be interested in a cath-lab software able to conduct affordable CFD-based analyses at the point-of-care.

Conclusions

Interventional cardiologists reported to be profoundly interested in adopting CFD simulations as a technology supporting decision making in the treatment of CAD in daily practice.

The appropriate use criteria: Improvements for its integration into real world clinical practice

The purpose of this position statement is to suggest ways in which future appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization might be restructured to: (1) incorporate improvement in quality of life and angina relief as primary goals of therapy, (2) integrate the findings of recent trials into quality appraisal, (3) employ the combined information of the coronary angiogram and invasive physiologic measurements together with the results of stress test imaging to assess risk, and (4) recognize the essential role that patient preference plays in making individualized therapeutic decisions. The AUC is a valuable tool within the quality assurance process; it is vital that interventionists ensure that percutaneous coronary intervention case selection is both evidence-based and patient oriented. Appropriate patient selection is an important quality indicator and adherence to evidence-based practice should be one metric in a portfolio of process and outcome indicators that measure quality.

Implementation of appropriate use criteria for cardiology tests and procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The American College of Cardiology appropriate use criteria (AUC) provide clinicians with evidence-informed recommendations for cardiac care. Adopting AUC into clinical workflows may present challenges, and there may be specific implementation strategies that are effective in promoting effective use of AUC. We sought to assess the effect of implementing AUC in clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis of studies found through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, or CINAHL databases. Peer-reviewed manuscripts published after 2005 that reported on the implementation of AUC for a cardiovascular test or procedure were included. The main outcome was to determine if AUC implementation was associated with a reduction in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care. Of the 18 included studies, the majority used pre/post-cohort designs; few (n = 3) were randomized trials. Most studies used multiple strategies (n = 12, 66.7%). Education was the most common individual intervention strategy (n = 13, 72.2%), followed by audit and feedback (n = 8, 44.4%) and computerized physician order entry (n = 6, 33.3%). No studies reported on formal use of stakeholder engagement or 'nudges'. In meta-analysis, AUC implementation was associated with a reduction in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.78). Funnel plot suggests the possibility of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

We found most published efforts to implement AUC observed reductions in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care. Studies rarely explored how or why the implementation strategy was effective. Because interventions were infrequently tested in isolation, it is difficult to make observations about their effectiveness as stand-alone strategies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091602. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018091602.