Multidisciplinary Heart Team Approach for Complex Coronary Artery Disease: Single Center Clinical Presentation

Background The Heart Team approach is ascribed a Class I recommendation in contemporary guidelines for revascularization of complex coronary artery disease. However, limited data are available regarding the decision-making and outcomes of patients based on this strategy. Methods and Results One hundred sixty-six high-risk coronary artery disease patients underwent Heart Team evaluation at a single institution between January 2015 and November 2018. We prospectively collected data on demographics, symptoms, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality/Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (STS-PROM/SYNTAX) scores, mode of revascularization, and outcomes. Mean age was 70.0 years; 122 (73.5%) patients were male. Prevalent comorbidities included diabetes mellitus (51.8%), peripheral artery disease (38.6%), atrial fibrillation (27.1%), end-stage renal disease on dialysis (13.3%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.7%). Eighty-seven (52.4%) patients had New York Heart Association III-IV and 112 (67.5%) had Canadian Cardiovascular Society III-IV symptomatology. Sixty-seven (40.4%) patients had left main and 118 (71.1%) had 3-vessel coronary artery disease. The median STS-PROM was 3.6% (interquartile range 1.9, 8.0) and SYNTAX score was 26 (interquartile range 20, 34). The median number of physicians per Heart Team meeting was 6 (interquartile range 5, 8). Seventy-nine (47.6%) and 49 (29.5%) patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. With increasing STS-PROM (low, intermediate, high operative risk), coronary artery bypass graft was performed less often (47.9%, 18.5%, 15.2%) and optimal medical therapy was recommended more often (11.3%, 18.5%, 30.3%). There were no trends in recommendation for coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, or optimal medical therapy by SYNTAX score tertiles. In-hospital and 30-day mortality was 3.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Conclusions Integrating a multidisciplinary Heart Team into institutional practice is feasible and provides a formalized approach to evaluating complex coronary artery disease patients. The comprehensive assessment of surgical, anatomical, and other risk scores using a decision aid may guide appropriate, evidence-based management within this team-based construct.

Mechanical, Team-Focused, Video-Reviewed Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Improves Return of Spontaneous Circulation After Emergency Department Implementation

Background

Outcomes in cardiac arrest remain suboptimal. Mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has not demonstrated clear clinical benefit; however, video review provides the capability to monitor CPR quality and provide constructive feedback to individuals and teams to improve their performance. The aim of our study was to evaluate cardiac arrest outcomes before and after initiation of a mechanical, team‐focused, video‐reviewed CPR intervention.

Methods and Results

In 2018, our emergency department began using mechanical CPR; a new team‐focused strategy with nurse‐led Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support; and biweekly, multidisciplinary video review of cardiac arrests. A revised approach to resuscitation was generated from a performance improvement session, and in situ simulation was used to disseminate our approach. The primary outcome of this study was the return of spontaneous circulation rate before and after our mechanical, team‐focused, video‐reviewed CPR intervention. Secondary outcomes included survival to admission and discharge. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used. The pre‐ and postintervention groups were similar at baseline. A total of 248 patients were included in our study (97 before and 151 after mechanical, team‐focused, video‐reviewed CPR). Return of spontaneous circulation was higher in the intervention group (41% versus 26%; P=0.014). There were nonsignificant increases in survival to admission (26% versus 20%; P=0.257) and survival to discharge (7% versus 3%; P=0.163). After controlling for covariates, the odds of return of spontaneous circulation remained higher after the intervention (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.14–3.89).

Conclusions

Implementation of our mechanical, team‐focused, video‐reviewed CPR intervention for cardiac arrest patients in our emergency department improved return of spontaneous circulation rates. Survival to hospital admission and discharge did not improve.

Partnering With Pharmacists to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk in Outpatient Settings

See Article Martınez-Mardones et al.

Role definition is key-Rapid qualitative ethnography findings from a team-based primary care transformation

PURPOSE

Implementing team-based care into existing primary care is challenging; understanding facilitators and barriers to implementation is critical. We assessed adoption and acceptability of new roles in the first 6 months of launching a team-based care model focused on preventive care, population health, and psychosocial support.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative rapid ethnography at a community-based test clinic, including 74 hours of observations and 28 semi-structured interviews. We identified implementation themes related to team-based care and specifically the integration of three roles purposively designed to enhance coordination for better patient outcomes, including preventive screening and mental health: (1) medical assistants as care coordinators; (2) extended care team specialists, including clinical pharmacist and behavioral health professional; and (3) advanced practice providers (APPs)-ie, nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

RESULTS

All stakeholders (ie, patients, providers, and staff) reported positive perceptions of care coordinators and extended care specialists; these roles were well defined and quickly implemented. Care coordinators effectively managed care between visits and established strong patient relationships. Specialist colocation facilitated patient access and well-supported diabetes services and mental health care. We also observed unanticipated value: Care coordinators relayed encounter-relevant chart information to providers while scribing; extended care specialists supported informal continuing medical education. In contrast, we observed uncertain definition and expectations of the APP role across stakeholders; accordingly, adoption and acceptability of the role varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice redesign can redistribute responsibility and patient connection throughout a team but should emphasize well-defined roles. Ethnography, conducted early in implementation with multistakeholder perspectives, can provide rapid and actionable insights about where roles may need refinement or redefinition to support ultimate physical and mental health outcomes for patients.

Improving blood pressure control through pharmacist interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Control of blood pressure (BP) remains a major challenge in primary care. Innovative interventions to improve BP control are therefore needed. By updating and combining data from 2 previous systematic reviews, we assess the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP and identify potential determinants of heterogeneity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of pharmacist interventions on BP among outpatients with or without diabetes were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. Weighted mean differences in BP were estimated using random effect models. Prediction intervals (PI) were computed to better express uncertainties in the effect estimates. Thirty-nine RCTs were included with 14 224 patients. Pharmacist interventions mainly included patient education, feedback to physician, and medication management. Compared with usual care, pharmacist interventions showed greater reduction in systolic BP (-7.6 mm Hg, 95% CI: -9.0 to -6.3; I(2)=67%) and diastolic BP (-3.9 mm Hg, 95% CI: -5.1 to -2.8; I(2)=83%). The 95% PI ranged from -13.9 to -1.4 mm Hg for systolic BP and from -9.9 to +2.0 mm Hg for diastolic BP. The effect tended to be larger if the intervention was led by the pharmacist and was done at least monthly.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist interventions - alone or in collaboration with other healthcare professionals - improved BP management. Nevertheless, pharmacist interventions had differential effects on BP, from very large to modest or no effect; and determinants of heterogeneity could not be identified. Determining the most efficient, cost-effective, and least time-consuming intervention should be addressed with further research.