暂无摘要。

The effects of standardized risk-adjusted periprocedural management of cardiac catheterization procedures in Non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remain unknown. We implemented a standard operating procedure (SOP) specifying risk assessment (RA, using National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk models) and risk-adjusted management (RM, e.g. intensified monitoring) in 2018 and aimed to investigate staff SOP adherence and associations with patient outcomes.
All 430 invasively managed NSTEMI patients (mean age 72y; 70.9% male) in 2018 were analyzed for staff SOP adherence and in-hospital clinical outcomes. 207 patients (48.1%; RM+) received both RA and RM; 92 patients (21.4%; RM-) received RA but no RM; 131 patients (30.5%; RA-) received neither RA nor RM. Lower staff adherence to RA was associated with emergency settings (51.9% (RA-) vs. 22.1% (RA+); p<0.01), presentation in cardiogenic shock (17.6% (RA-) vs. 6.4% (RA+); p<0.01) and invasive mechanical ventilation (12.2% (RA-) vs. 3.3% (RA+); p<0.01). Early sheath removal (87.9% (RM+) vs. 56.5% (RM-); p<0.01) and intensified monitoring (p<0.01) were more frequent in the RM+ group. All-cause mortality was not different (1.4% (RM+) vs. 4.3% (RM-); p=0.13), but there were fewer major bleeding events with associated with RM (2.4% (RM+) vs. 12% (RM-); p<0.01), which remained independently associated with RM in a multivariate logistic regression model correcting for confounders (p<0.01).
In an all-comer patient cohort with NSTEMI, staff adherence to risk-adjusted periprocedural management was independently associated with fewer major bleeding events. Staff adherence to SOP-specified risk assessment was frequently neglected in more critical clinical situations.

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry is a group of registries maintained by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. These registries are used by a diverse constituency to improve the quality and outcomes of cardiovascular care, to assess the safety and effectiveness of new therapies, and for research. To achieve these goals, registry data must be complete and reliable. In this article, we review the process of National Cardiovascular Data Registry data collection, assess data completeness and integrity, and report on the current state of the data. Registry data are complete. Accuracy is very good but variable, and there is room for improvement. Knowledge of the quality of data is essential to ensuring its appropriate use.

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is a major adverse event in patients undergoing coronary angiography. The Mehran risk model is the gold-standard for CIN risk prediction. However, its performance in comparison to more contemporary National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Acute Kidney Injury (NCDR-AKI) risk models remains unknown. We aimed to compare both in this study.
Predictions of Mehran and NCDR-AKI risk models and clinical events of CIN and need for dialysis were assessed in a total of 2067 patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Risk models were compared regarding discrimination (receiver operating characteristic analysis), net reclassification improvement (NRI) and calibration (graphical and statistical analysis). The NCDR risk model showed superior risk discrimination for predicting CIN (NCDR c-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.78; vs. Mehran c-index 0.69, 95% CI 0.66-0.72, p < 0.01), and continuous NRI (0.22; 95% CI 0.12-0.32; p < 0.01) compared to the Mehran model. The NCDR risk model tended to underestimate the risk of CIN, while the Mehran model was more evenly calibrated. For the prediction of need for dialysis, NCDR-AKI-D also discriminated risk better (c-index 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.91; vs. Mehran c-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.84; pNCDRvsMehran < 0.01), but continuous NRI showed no benefit and calibration analysis revealed an underestimation of dialysis risk.
In German patients undergoing coronary angiography, the modern NCDR risk model for predicting contrast-induced nephropathy showed superior discrimination compared to the Mehran model while showing less accurate calibration. Results for the outcome \'need for dialysis\' were equivocal.

Risk prediction with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk model is guideline-recommended in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. However, the performance of more contemporary scores derived from ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and National Cardiovascular Data (NCDR) registries remains incompletely understood. We aimed to compare these models in German ACS patients.
A total of 1567 patients with (Non-)ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI: 1002 patients, STEMI: 565 patients) undergoing invasive management at University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany) from 2014 to 2018 were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 7.5% (NSTEMI 3.7%, STEMI 14.5%). Parameters for calculation of GRACE 1.0, GRACE 2.0, ACTION and NCDR risk models and in-hospital mortality were assessed and risk model performance was compared. The GRACE 1.0 risk model for prediction of in-hospital mortality discriminated risk superior (c-index 0.84) to its successor GRACE 2.0 (c-index 0.79, pGRACE1.0vsGRACE2.0 = 0.0008). The NCDR model performed best in discrimination of risk in ACS overall (c-index 0.89; pACTIONvsNCDR < 0.0001; pGRACEvsNCDR < 0.0001) and showed superior performance compared to GRACE in NSTEMI and STEMI subgroups (pGRACEvsNCDR both < 0.02). ACTION and GRACE risk models performed comparable to each other (both c-index 0.84, pGRACEvsACTION = 0.68), with advantages for ACTION in NSTEMI patients (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.84 (GRACE); pGRACEvsACTION = 0.02). ACTION and GRACE 2.0 showed the most accurate calibration of all models.
In a contemporary German patient population with ACS, modern NCDR and ACTION risk models showed superior performance in prediction of in-hospital mortality compared to the gold-standard GRACE model.

OBJECTIVE: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk scores for mortality, bleeding and acute kidney injury (AKI) are accurate outcome predictors of coronary catheterization procedures in North American populations. However, their application in German clinical practice remained elusive and we thus aimed to verify their use.
METHODS: NCDR scores for mortality, bleeding and AKI and corresponding clinical outcomes were retrospectively assessed in patients undergoing catheterization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or for elective coronary procedures at a German Heart Center from 2014 to 2017. Risk model performance was assessed using receiver-operating-characteristic curves (discrimination) and graphical analysis/logistic regression (calibration).
RESULTS: A total of 1637 patients were included, procedures were performed for STEMI (565 patients, 34.5%), NSTEMI (572 patients, 34.9%) and elective purposes (500 patients, 30.5%); 6% (13% of STEMI and 5% of NSTEMI patients) presented in cardiogenic shock and 3% with resuscitated cardiac arrest. Radial access was used in 38% of procedures and cross-over was necessary in 5%; PCI was performed in 60% of procedures. In-hospital mortality was 6.3% (STEMI 14.5%; NSTEMI 3.7%; elective 0%) and major bleedings occurred in 5.6% (STEMI 10.6%; NSTEMI 5.4%; elective 0.2%); AKI was detected in 18.1% of patients (STEMI 23.7%; NSTEMI 27.3%; elective 1.4%), amounting to KDIGO stage I/II/III in 11.5%/3.5%/3.2%. NCDR risk models discriminated very well for mortality [AUC 0.93 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.95] and well for major bleeding (AUC 0.82, CI 0.78-0.86) and any AKI (AUC 0.83, CI 0.81-0.86). Discrimination in the subgroup of patients with PCI was comparable (mortality: AUC 0.90; major bleeding: AUC 0.78; any AKI: AUC 0.79). However, calibration showed considerable underestimation of mortality and AKI in high-risk patients, while major bleeding was consistently overestimated (Hosmer-Lemeshow p < 0.02 for all outcomes).
CONCLUSIONS: The NCDR risk models showed excellent performance in discriminating high-risk from low-risk patients in contemporary German interventional cardiology. Model calibration for adverse event probability prediction, however, is limited and demands recalibration, especially in high-risk patients.

The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with non-left bundle branch block (LBBB) conduction abnormality have not been fully explored.
This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes among Medicare-aged patients with nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (NICD) versus right bundle branch block (RBBB) in patients eligible for implantation with a CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D).
Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registry data between 2010 and 2013, the authors compared outcomes in CRT-eligible patients implanted with CRT-D versus ICD-only therapy among patients with NICD and RBBB. Also, among all CRT-D-implanted patients, the authors compared outcomes in those with NICD versus RBBB. Survival curves and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were used to assess outcomes including hospitalization and death.
In 11,505 non-LBBB CRT-eligible patients, after multivariable adjustment, among patients with RBBB, CRT-D was not associated with better outcomes, compared with ICD alone, regardless of QRS duration. Among patients with NICD and a QRS ≥150 ms, CRT-D was associated with decreased mortality at 3 years compared with ICD alone (HR: 0.602; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.416 to 0.871; p = 0.0071). Among 5,954 CRT-D-implanted patients, after multivariable adjustment NICD compared with RBBB was associated with lower mortality at 3 years in those with a QRS duration of ≥150 ms (HR: 0.757; 95% CI: 0.625 to 0.917; p = 0.0044).
Among non-LBBB CRT-D-eligible patients, CRT-D implantation was associated with better outcomes compared with ICD alone specifically in NICD patients with a QRS duration of ≥150 ms. Careful patient selection should be considered for CRT-D implantation in patients with non-LBBB conduction.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a resurgence of interest in interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP) and its potential to positively impact health outcomes at both the patient level and population level, healthcare delivery, and health professions education. This resurgence of interest led to the creation of the National Center on Interprofessional Collaborative Practice and Education in October 2012.
METHODS: This paper describes three intertwined knowledge generation strategies of the National Center on Interprofessional Practice and Education: (1) the development of a Nexus Incubator Network, (2) the undertaking of comparative effectiveness research, and (3) the creation of a National Center Data Repository.
RESULTS: As these strategies are implemented over time they will result in the production of empirically grounded knowledge regarding the direction and scope of the impact, if any, of IPECP on well-defined health and healthcare outcomes including the possible improvement of the patient experience of care.
CONCLUSIONS: Among the motivating factors for the National Center and the three strategies adopted and addressed herein is the need for rigorously produced, scientifically sound evidence regarding IPECP and whether or not it has the capacity to positively affect the patient experience of care, the health of populations, and the per capita cost of healthcare.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) track primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performance in the form of door-to-balloon time. For quality assessment, exceptions are made for patients with \"unavoidable delays\" in both registries, yet it remains unclear how consistently such patients are identified.
RESULTS: All primary PCI patients at 3 Massachusetts hospitals (Brigham and Women\'s, Massachusetts General, and North Shore Medical Center) from 2009 to 2011 were evaluated for CMS inclusion/exclusion and NCDR nonsystems delay (NSD) status. We subsequently analyzed patient characteristics and outcomes based on these strata. Among 456 total patients, 128 (28%) were excluded from CMS reporting, whereas 56 (12%) were listed in the NCDR registry as having an NSD. Forty of 56 (71%) patients with NSD were also excluded from CMS reporting, whereas 312 of 400 (78%) patients reported without NSD were included in CMS reports. Between-registry agreement on patients with unavoidable delays was modest (κ=0.32). Among CMS-included patients without NSD, 94% received PCI within 90 minutes compared with 29% of CMS-excluded patients with NSD (P<0.001). Likewise, CMS-included patients without NSD had a 4-fold better 1-year mortality rate compared with CMS-excluded patients with NSD (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: More than twice as many primary PCI patients are excluded from CMS quality analyses compared with NCDR. With the use of currently available cardiovascular quality registries, it is unclear how many patients truly require unavoidable delays during primary PCI. Patients with NSD had the worst outcomes regardless of CMS status.