| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Claeys, M. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Organization of intensive cardiac care units in Europe : Results of a multinational survey
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 9:8, s. 993-1001
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The present survey aims to describe the intensive cardiac care unit organization and admission policies in Europe. Methods: A total of 228 hospitals (61% academic) from 27 countries participated in this survey. In addition to the organizational aspects of the intensive cardiac care units, including classification of the intensive cardiac care unit levels, data on the admission diagnoses were gathered from consecutive patients who were admitted during a two-day period. Admission policies were evaluated by comparing illness severity with the intensive cardiac care unit level. Gross national income was used to differentiate high-income countries (n=13) from middle-income countries (n=14). Results: A total of 98% of the hospitals had an intensive cardiac care unit: 70% had a level 1 intensive cardiac care unit, 76% had a level 2 intensive cardiac care unit, 51% had a level 3 intensive cardiac care unit, and 60% of the hospitals had more than one intensive cardiac care unit level. High-income countries tended to have more level 3 intensive cardiac care units than middle-income countries (55% versus 41%, p=0.07). A total of 5159 admissions were scored on illness severity: 63% were low severity, 24% were intermediate severity, and 12% were high severity. Patients with low illness severity were predominantly admitted to level 1 intensive cardiac care units, whereas patients with high illness severity were predominantly admitted to level 2 and 3 intensive cardiac care units. A policy mismatch was observed in 12% of the patients; some patients with high illness severity were admitted to level 1 intensive cardiac care units, which occurred more often in middle-income countries, whereas some patients with low illness severity were admitted to level 3 intensive cardiac care units, which occurred more frequently in high-income countries. Conclusion: More than one-third of the admitted patients were considered intermediate or high risk. Although patients with higher illness severity were mostly admitted to high-level intensive cardiac care units, an admission policy mismatch was observed in 12% of the patients; this mismatch was partly related to insufficient logistic intensive cardiac care unit capacity.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Leonardi, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Composition, structure, and function of heart teams: a joint position paper of the ACVC, EAPCI, EACTS, and EACTA focused on the management of patients with complex coronary artery disease requiring myocardial revascularization
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal-Acute Cardiovascular Care. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 10:1, s. 83-93
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Contemporary cardiovascular medicine is complex, dynamic, and interactive. Therefore, multidisciplinary dialogue between different specialists is required to deliver optimal and patient-centred care. This has led to the concept of explicit collaborations of different specialists caring for patients with complex cardiovascular diseases-that is 'heart teams'. These teams are particularly valuable to minimize referral bias and improve guideline adherence as so to be responsive to patient preferences, needs, and values but may be challenging to coordinate, especially in the acute setting. This position paper-jointly developed by four cardiovascular associations-is intended to provide conceptual and practical considerations for the composition, structure, and function of multidisciplinary teams. It focuses on patients with complex coronary artery diseases in both elective and urgent setting and provide guidance on how to implement the heart team both in chronic and in acute coronary syndromes patients, including cases with mechanical complications and haemodynamic instability; it also discuss strategies for clear and transparent patient communication and provision of a patient-centric approach. Finally, gaps in evidence and research perspectives in this context are discussed.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Schiele, Francois, et al.
(författare)
-
2020 Update of the quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction: a position paper of the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care: the study group for quality indicators from the ACVC and the NSTE-ACS guideline group
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 10:2, s. 224-233
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Quality indicators (QIs) are tools to improve the delivery of evidence-base medicine. In 2017, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) developed a set of QIs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which have been evaluated at national and international levels and across different populations. However, an update of these QIs is needed in light of the accumulated experience and the changes in the supporting evidence. Methods and results The ESC methodology for the QI development was used to update the 2017 ACVC QIs. We identified key domains of AMI care, conducted a literature review, developed a list of candidate QIs, and used a modified Delphi method to select the final set of indicators. The same seven domains of AMI care identified by the 2017 Study Group were retained for this update. For each domain, main and secondary QIs were developed reflecting the essential and complementary aspects of care, respectively. Overall, 26 QIs are proposed in this document, compared to 20 in the 2017 set. New QIs are proposed in this document (e.g. the centre use of high-sensitivity troponin), some were retained or modified (e.g. the in-hospital risk assessment), and others were retired in accordance with the changes in evidence [e.g. the proportion of patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) treated with fondaparinux] and the feasibility assessments (e.g. the proportion of patients with NSTEMI whom risk assessment is performed using the GRACE and CRUSADE risk scores). Conclusion Updated QIs for the management of AMI were developed according to contemporary knowledge and accumulated experience. These QIs may be applied to evaluate and improve the quality of AMI care.
|
|
