Coronary Artery Disease: Hiratzka LF

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00094, Anonymous00095, Anonymous00096, Anonymous00097, Anonymous00098, Anonymous00099, Anonymous00100, Anonymous00101. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #18342240 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Patel MR, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00125, Anonymous00126, Anonymous00127, Anonymous00128, Anonymous00129, Anonymous00130, Anonymous00131, Anonymous00132. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #18316491 links to  free full text

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00137, Anonymous00138, Anonymous00139, Anonymous00140, Anonymous00141, Anonymous00142, Anonymous00143, Anonymous00144, Anonymous00145, Anonymous00146. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #18314889 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain.The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Anonymous00282, Anonymous00283, Anonymous00284, Anonymous00285, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, de Leon AC, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O'Gara PT, O'Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS, Smith SC, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Page RL, Riegel B. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #16880336 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, Edwards FH, Ewy GA, Gardner TJ, Hart JC, Herrmann HC, Hillis LD, Hutter AM, Lytle BW, Marlow RA, Nugent WC, Orszulak TA, Antman EM, Smith SC, Alpert JS, Anderson JL, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Gibbons RJ, Gregoratos G, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Jacobs AK, Ornato JP, Anonymous00232, Anonymous00233, Anonymous00234. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #15337239 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, Bateman TM, Messer JV, Berman DS, O'Gara PT, Carabello BA, Russell RO, Cerqueira MD, St John Sutton MG, DeMaria AN, Udelson JE, Kennedy JW, Verani MS, Williams KA, Antman EM, Smith SC, Alpert JS, Gregoratos G, Anderson JL, Hiratzka LF, Faxon DP, Hunt SA, Fuster V, Jacobs AK, Gibbons RJ, Russell RO, Anonymous00288, Anonymous00289, Anonymous00290. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #14522503 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Klocke FJ, Baird MG, Lorell BH, Bateman TM, Messer JV, Berman DS, O'Gara PT, Carabello BA, Russell RO, Cerqueira MD, St John Sutton MG, DeMaria AN, Udelson JE, Kennedy JW, Verani MS, Williams KA, Antman EM, Smith SC, Alpert JS, Gregoratos G, Anderson JL, Hiratzka LF, Faxon DP, Hunt SA, Fuster V, Jacobs AK, Gibbons RJ, Russell RO, Anonymous00249, Anonymous00250, Anonymous00251. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #12975245 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K, Daley J, Deedwania PC, Douglas JS, Ferguson TB, Fihn SD, Fraker TD, Gardin JM, O'Rourke RA, Pasternak RC, Williams SV, Gibbons RJ, Alpert JS, Antman EM, Hiratzka LF, Fuster V, Faxon DP, Gregoratos G, Jacobs AK, Smith SC, Anonymous00182, Anonymous00183. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #12515758 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Eagle KA, Berger PB, Calkins H, Chaitman BR, Ewy GA, Fleischmann KE, Fleisher LA, Froehlich JB, Gusberg RJ, Leppo JA, Ryan T, Schlant RC, Winters WL, Gibbons RJ, Antman EM, Alpert JS, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Gregoratos G, Jacobs AK, Hiratzka LF, Russell RO, Smith SC, Anonymous00237. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #11889023 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Hiratzka LF, Eagle KA, Liang L, Fonarow GC, LaBresh KA, Peterson ED, Anonymous00239. · Cardiac Vascular and Thoracic Surgeons, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #17846305 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease program facilitates patient and physician compliance with proven atherosclerosis risk reduction strategies with collaborative learning sessions, teaching materials, predischarge online check lists, and web-based performance measure feedback for continuous quality improvement. Patients having coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) may be subject to different care processes, nursing unit pathways, and personnel than patients having percutaneous catheter intervention or neither intervention, which may affect compliance. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Get With the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease database was queried to determine whether compliance with secondary prevention performance measures for CABG patients was different from that for nonsurgical patients. A total of 119,106 patients were treated with CABG (14,118), percutaneous catheter intervention (58,702), or neither intervention (46,286). Compliance with medication prescriptions, including aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and lipid-lowering drugs, and smoking cessation counseling for eligible patients was analyzed. Medically appropriate exclusions and contraindications were included in the analysis. After adjusting for 14 clinical variables, CABG patients were less likely to receive most secondary prevention measures relative to percutaneous catheter intervention patients. In contrast, CABG patients were more likely to receive aspirin, beta-blocker, and smoking cessation counseling than neither intervention patients. Composite adherence and defect-free rates were highest for percutaneous catheter intervention patients and lowest for neither intervention patients after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences in compliance at hospital discharge with secondary prevention performance measures for CABG patients compared with nonsurgical patients. Process of care differences may explain these differences and should be examined further because significant opportunities for improved compliance are evident. CABG patients in particular represent a group for whom secondary prevention has proven benefits, and they may benefit from future quality improvement interventions.

Johnson WM, Smith JM, Woods SE, Hendy MP, Hiratzka LF. · Department of Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA. · Arch Surg. · Pubmed #16301446 links to  free full text

Abstract: HYPOTHESIS: Outcome differences in octogenarians vs patients younger than 80 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or valve surgery can be analyzed to isolate the effect of age alone on morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: Eight-year hospitalization cohort study. Physicians, nurses, and perfusionists prospectively collected data on 225 variables. SETTING: Community hospital. PATIENTS: A consecutive sample of 7726 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or valve surgery between October 1, 1993, and February 28, 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: There were 9 main outcomes of interest: mortality, length of hospital stay, gastrointestinal tract complications, neurologic complications, pulmonary complications, renal complications, return to intensive care unit, intraoperative complications, and reoperation to treat bleeding. We controlled for 16 potential confounding variables to isolate outcome differences according to age. RESULTS: Of 7726 patients who fit the inclusion criteria, 522 were octogenarians. Compared with nonoctogenarians, octogenarians had a significantly higher New York Heart Association functional classification, higher incidence of hypertension, and underwent a greater number of coronary artery bypass grafting plus valve surgical procedures (P<.05). They also had significantly lower body surface area, fewer total number of grafts used, less history of tobacco use, and less abnormal left ventricular hypertrophy, and there were fewer nonwhite patients and fewer men. At multivariate analysis, octogenarians had a higher risk for death (relative risk [RR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-1.83), longer hospital stay (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04), more neurologic complications (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.26-1.67), and were more likely to undergo a reoperation to treat bleeding (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-1.72). Univariate analyses revealed no difference between octogenarians and nonoctogenarians for diabetes mellitus, urgency of procedure, prior myocardial infarction, time since last myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular history, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or pump time. CONCLUSIONS: Age alone has been shown to influence outcomes after cardiac bypass or valve surgery. Octogenarians undergoing cardiac surgery have more comorbidities and higher mortality even after controlling for 16 potential confounding variables, compared with nonoctogenarians.

Powell KL, Smith JM, Woods SE, Hendy MP, Engel AM, Hiratzka LF. · Department of Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220, USA. · J Card Surg. · Pubmed #15383059 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To assess if coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients with dialysis-dependent end stage renal disease (ESRD) experience greater intraoperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality compared to CABG patients without ESRD. METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study from an 8-year hospitalization cohort in which data were collected prospectively. Inclusion criteria included CABG surgery and age greater than 18 years. Cases were patients with dialysis dependent ESRD (N = 28) and controls were patients without ESRD (N = 84). Cases were matched to controls 1:3 on age, gender, tobacco history, and New York Heart Association Functional Class. The outcomes of interest were mortality, intensive care unit length of stay, total length of hospitalization, time on the ventilator, wound complications, pulmonary complications, neurological complications, gastrointestinal complications, arrhythmia, and intraoperative complications. Using logistic regression we controlled for 13 potential confounding variables. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups with the exception of total length of hospitalization. Patients with dialysis-dependent ESRD had a significantly longer total hospitalization stay (21%) than patients without ESRD. There were no significant differences for the remaining nine outcomes of interest, including perioperative morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality for CABG were not increased for patients with dialysis-dependent ESRD compared to patients without ESRD. However, patients on dialysis undergoing CABG experienced a greater length of hospitalization than patients undergoing CABG who were not on dialysis.

Recht MH, Smith JM, Woods SE, Engel AM, Hiratzka LF. · Department of Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital, Hatton Research 11-J, 375 Dixmyth Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA. · J Am Coll Surg. · Pubmed #15110808 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess risk factors and outcomes of gastrointestinal (GI) complications in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a nested case-control study from a 9-year hospitalization cohort (n = 7,345) in which data were collected prospectively. Patients developed GI complications (n = 66) and controls did not (n = 330). Cases were matched to controls 1:5 on type of surgery. We examined 16 risk factors and 14 outcomes. RESULTS: Five risk factors proved significant in predicting GI complications. Patients were more likely to be older than age 70, to be on dialysis, to have left ventricular hypertrophy, and to be on anticoagulants; the procedure was also more likely to be urgent. There was no significant difference between the cases and controls for the remaining 11 risk factors. We also computed correlation coefficients among the significant variables; using regression analysis, we found that patients undergoing CABG had a threefold increase in the risk of GI complications if they were older than age 70 (odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% CI 1.03 to 0.97), if they were on dialysis (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.98 to 1.22), and if their procedure was urgent (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.4). Eleven outcomes proved significant. Patients with GI complications ran a greater risk of mortality; required more additional procedures; suffered arrhythmia that required treatment; and were more likely to have neurologic, pulmonary, renal, and sternal wound complications. They also had greater length of hospitalization, intensive care unit length of hospitalization, ventilator time, and postoperative creatine phosphokinase levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CABG surgery, urgency of the procedure, age greater than 70 years, and dialysis all significantly increased the risk of a GI complication. Patients with GI complications also experienced more negative outcomes.