Interventional cardiologists' perceptions of percutaneous coronary intervention quality measurement and feedback

Evaluation of Peer Review of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Operator Performance

BACKGROUND

Case-based peer review of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used by many hospitals for quality improvement and to make decisions regarding physician competency. However, there are no studies testing the reliability or validity of peer review for PCI performance evaluation.

METHODS

We recruited interventional cardiologists from 12 Veterans Affairs Health System facilities throughout the United States to provide PCI cases for review. Ten reviewers performed blinded reviews such that each case was reviewed twice. Cases were rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best) for 6 care domains (Appropriateness, Lesion Suitability, Strategy, Technical Performance, Outcome, and Documentation) with a summary performance score calculated as the average of all domains. Separately, reviewers determined whether the standard of care was met. Interobserver reliability of the summary performance score was calculated using interclass correlation coefficient. We examined procedural complications and 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiac events for all PCIs performed by these operators from 2019 to 2022 when stratified in tertiles by summary performance score.

RESULTS

Of the 65 cases provided by 13 operators, the mean summary performance score was 3.90 (SD=0.78) out of 5. The interclass correlation coefficient was 0.53, indicating moderate interobserver reliability. For 19 cases (29.2%), 1 reviewer indicated that the performance did not meet the standard of care; however, the second reviewer disagreed in all these cases. Average performance scores ranged from 3.35 to 4.38. Among the 3390 PCIs performed by reviewed cardiologists from 2019 to 2022, the lowest-rated tertile had higher rates of complications (2.9% versus 1.8%, P<0.01) and major adverse cardiac events (10.6% versus 8.0%, P<0.01) compared with the highest-rated tertile.

CONCLUSIONS

Case-based peer review identifies variation in physician performance that is correlated with PCI outcomes. However, reviewer disagreements about the standard of care raise concerns about the use of peer review for high-stakes assessments of physician competency.

Best Practices for Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Morbidity and Mortality Conferences

Cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) are a critical component of CCL quality improvement programs and are important for the education of cardiology trainees and the lifelong learning of CCL physicians and team members. Despite their fundamental role in the functioning of the CCL, no consensus exists on how CCL MMCs should identify and select cases for review, how they should be conducted, and how results should be used to improve CCL quality. In addition, medicolegal ramifications of CCL MMCs are not well understood. This document from the American College of Cardiology's Interventional Section attempts to clarify current issues and options in the conduct of CCL MMCs and to recommend best practices for their conduct.

Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available.

RESULTS

Of 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.

Trends in Arterial Access Site Selection and Bleeding Outcomes Following Coronary Procedures, 2011-2018

BACKGROUND

Prior studies of radial access for cardiac catheterization have focused on early adopters of the technique, and some have described a risk/treatment paradox of low radial access use among high bleeding risk patients. This study aimed to determine (1) trends in radial access use over time, (2) if increasing use of radial access is driven by new invasive and interventional cardiologists (operators) or existing operators changing their practice, and (3) if increasing radial rates are associated with lower bleeding rates and elimination of the risk/treatment paradox.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study using data from the Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program, we calculated radial access rates and risk-adjusted postprocedural bleeding rates of patients undergoing diagnostic angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2011 and 2018 in Veterans Affairs hospitals. We used separate bleeding risk models for diagnostic angiography and PCI and assessed temporal trends with the Kendall Tau-b test.

RESULTS

Among 253 179 diagnostic angiograms and 93 614 PCIs, radial access rates increased over time for both diagnostic (17.5%-60.4%; P<0.01)) and PCI procedures (14.0%-51.8%; P<0.01). Existing operators and new operators increased their use at similar rates, but new operators entered practice with higher baseline rates. Nearly all operators used radial access at least once in 2018. Overall adjusted rates of bleeding declined, a trend that was significant for diagnostic angiography (2.4%-1.4%, P=0.02) but not PCI (3.4%-2.5%, P=0.20). Femoral access patients had a higher predicted risk for bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

A steady rise in radial access for diagnostic angiography and PCI was driven by increasing use among existing operators and high use by new operators. While this was associated with decreasing bleeding rates, a risk/treatment paradox for access site selection persists; patients at higher bleeding risk were still more likely to receive femoral access.

Contemporary Clinical and Coronary Anatomic Risk Model for 30-Day Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures are increasing in clinical and anatomic complexity, likely increasing the calculated risk of mortality. There is need for a real-time risk prediction tool that includes clinical and coronary anatomic information that is integrated into the electronic medical record system.

METHODS

We assessed 70 503 PCIs performed in 73 Veterans Affairs hospitals from 2008 to 2019. We used regression and machine-learning strategies to develop a prediction model for 30-day mortality following PCI. We assessed model performance with and without inclusion of the Veterans Affairs SYNTAX score (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery), an assessment of anatomic complexity. Finally, the discriminatory ability of the Veterans Affairs model was compared with the CathPCI mortality model.

RESULTS

The overall 30-day morality rate was 1.7%. The final model included 14 variables. Presentation status (salvage, emergent, urgent), ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, age, congestive heart failure, prior valve disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, atrial fibrillation, elevated international normalized ratio, and the Veterans Affairs SYNTAX score were all associated with increased risk of death, while increasing body mass index, hemoglobin level, and prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery were associated with lower risk of death. C-index for the development cohort was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.94) and for the 2019 validation cohort and the site validation cohort was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.92) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio of predicting a mortality event in the top decile was 2.87% more accurate than the CathPCI mortality model. Inclusion of anatomic information in the model resulted in significant improvement in model performance (likelihood ratio test P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This contemporary risk model accurately predicts 30-day post-PCI mortality using a combination of clinical and anatomic variables. This can be immediately implemented into clinical practice to promote personalized informed consent discussions and appropriate preparation for high-risk PCI cases.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Operator Profiles and Associations With In-Hospital Mortality

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention is performed by operators with differing experience, technique, and case mix. It is unknown if operator practice patterns impact patient outcomes. We sought to determine if a cluster algorithm can identify distinct profiles of percutaneous coronary intervention operators and if these profiles are associated with patient outcomes.

METHODS

Operators performing at least 25 annual procedures between 2014 and 2018 were clustered using an agglomerative hierarchical clustering algorithm. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared between clusters.

RESULTS

We identified 4 practice profiles among 7706 operators performing 2 937 419 procedures. Cluster 1 (n=3345) demonstrated case mix and practice patterns similar to the national median. Cluster 2 (n=1993) treated patients with lower clinical acuity and were less likely to use intracoronary diagnostics, atherectomy, and radial access. Cluster 3 (n=1513) had the lowest case volume, were more likely to work at rural hospitals, and cared for a higher proportion of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Cluster 4 (n=855) had the highest case volume, were most likely to treat patients with high anatomic complexity and use atherectomy, intracoronary diagnostics, and mechanical support. Compared with cluster 1, adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar for cluster 2 (estimated difference, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.04]), higher for cluster 3 (0.14 [0.07-0.22]), and lower for cluster 4 (-0.15 [-0.24 to -0.06]).

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct percutaneous coronary intervention operator profiles are differentially associated with patient outcomes. A phenotypic approach to physician assessment may provide actionable feedback for quality improvement.

Impact of operator volumes and experience on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting and Tracking (CART) program

BACKGROUND

Recent analyses of the volume-outcome relationship for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have suggested a less robust association than previously reported. It is unknown if novel factors such as lifetime operator experience influence this relationship.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relationship between annual volumes and outcomes for PCI and determine whether lifetime operator experience modulates the association.

METHODS

Annual PCI volumes for facilities and operators within the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System and their relationship with 30-day mortality following PCI were described. The influence of operator lifetime experience on the volume-outcome relationship was assessed. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to adjust for patient and procedural factors.

RESULTS

57,608 PCIs performed from 2013 to 2018 by 382 operators and 63 institutions were analyzed. Operator annualized PCI volume averaged 47.6 (standard deviation [SD] 49.1) and site annualized volume averaged 189.2 (SD 105.2). Median operator experience was 9.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 4.0-15.0). There was no independent relationship between operator annual volume, institutional volume, or operator lifetime experience with 30-day mortality (p > 0.10). However, the interaction between operator volume and lifetime experience was associated with a marginal decrease in mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.9998, 95% CI 0.9996-0.9999).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant associations between facility or operator-level procedural volume and 30-day mortality following PCI in a nationally integrated healthcare system. There was a marginal association between the interaction of operator lifetime experience, operator annual volume, and 30-day mortality that is unlikely to be clinically relevant, though does suggest an opportunity to explore novel factors that may influence the volume-outcome relationship.