Edward T. Martin

ACCF/HRS/AHA/ASE/HFSA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2013 appropriate use criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy

Steven R. Bailey, MD, FACC, FSCAI, FAHA, Moderator Andrea M. Russo, MD, FACC, FHRS, Writing Group Liaison [⁎][1] Suraj Kapa, MD, Writing Group Liaison Michael B. Alexander, MD, FACC[§][2] Steven R. Bailey, MD, FACC, FSCAI, FAHA[∥][3] Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green, MD, FHRS[∥][3] Alan S.

Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator

Background The presence of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device has long been a contraindication for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We established a prospective registry to determine the risks associated with MRI at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 tesla for patients who had a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) that was “non–MRI‐conditional” (i.e., not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MRI scanning). Methods Patients in the registry were referred for clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at a field strength of 1.5 tesla. Devices were interrogated before and after MRI with the use of a standardized protocol and were appropriately reprogrammed before the scanning. The primary end points were death, generator or lead failure, induced arrhythmia, loss of capture, or electrical reset during the scanning. The secondary end points were changes in device settings. Results MRI was performed in 1000 cases in which patients had a pacemaker and in 500 cases in which patients had an ICD. No deaths, lead failures, losses of capture, or ventricular arrhythmias occurred during MRI. One ICD generator could not be interrogated after MRI and required immediate replacement; the device had not been appropriately programmed per protocol before the MRI. We observed six cases of self‐terminating atrial fibrillation or flutter and six cases of partial electrical reset. Changes in lead impedance, pacing threshold, battery voltage, and P‐wave and R‐wave amplitude exceeded prespecified thresholds in a small number of cases. Repeat MRI was not associated with an increase in adverse events. Conclusions In this study, device or lead failure did not occur in any patient with a non–MRI‐conditional pacemaker or ICD who underwent clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at 1.5 tesla, was appropriately screened, and had the device reprogrammed in accordance with the prespecified protocol. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and others; MagnaSafe ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00907361.)

2012 ACCF/AHA/ACR/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM/SVN/SVS Key Data Elements and Definitions for Peripheral Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Data Standards for Peripheral Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease)

WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair; Michael Belkin, MD*; Edward I. Bluth, MD, FACR†; Donald E. Casey, JR, MD, MPH, FAHA, FACP‡; Seemant Chaturvedi, MD, FAHA, FAAN§; Michael D. Dake, MD; Jerome L. Fleg, MD, FACC, FAHA ; Alan T. Hirsch, MD, FACC, FAHA; Michael R. Jaff, DO, FACC¶; John A. Kern, MD#; David J. Malenka, MD, FACC, FAHA**; Edward T. Martin, MD, FACC, FACP, FAHA††; Emile R. Mohler, III, MD, FACC, FAHA‡‡; Timothy Murphy, MD, FACR, FAHA, FSIR, FSVMB§§; Jeffrey W. Olin, DO, FACC, FAHA; Judith G. Regensteiner, PHD, FAHA ; Robert H. Rosenwasser, MD, FACS, FAHA¶¶; Peter Sheehan, MD##; Kerry J. Stewart, EdD, MAACVPR, FAHA***; Diane Treat-Jacobson, PHD, RN, FAHA†††; Gilbert R. Upchurch, JR, MD, FACS, FAHA*; Christopher J. White, MD, FACC, FAHA‡‡‡; Jack A. Ziffer, MD, PHD, FACC, FAHA, FSCCT§§§

ACCF/AHA/ACR/SCAI/SIR/SVM/SVN/SVS 2010 Performance Measures for Adults With Peripheral Artery Disease

Over the past decade, there has been an increasing awareness that the quality of medical care delivered in the United States is variable. In its seminal document dedicated to characterizing deficiencies in delivering effective, timely, safe, equitable, efficient, and patient-centered medical care, the Institute of Medicine described a quality “chasm”.1 Recognition of the magnitude of the gap between the care that is delivered and the care that ought to be provided has stimulated interest in the development of measures of quality of care and the use of such measures for the purposes of quality improvement and accountability. Consistent with this national focus on healthcare quality, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have taken a leadership role in developing measures of the quality of care for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in several clinical areas (Table 1). The ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures was formed in February 2000 and was charged with identifying the clinical topics appropriate for the development of performance measures and with assembling writing committees composed of clinical and methodological experts. When appropriate, these committees have included representation from other organizations involved in the care of patients with the condition of focus. The committees are informed about the methodology of performance measure development and are instructed to construct measures for use both prospectively and retrospectively, to rely upon easily documented clinical criteria, and where appropriate, to incorporate administrative data. The data elements required for the performance measures are linked to existing ACCF/AHA clinical data standards to encourage uniform measurements of cardiovascular care. The writing committees are also instructed to evaluate the extent to which existing nationally recognized performance measures conform to the attributes of performance measures described by the ACCF/AHA and to strive to create measures aligned with acceptable existing measures …

ACCF/AHA/ACR/SCAI/SIR/SVM/SVN/SVS 2010 performance measures for adults with peripheral artery disease

1Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Representative; 2Society for Vascular Surgery Representative; 3ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Liaison; 4American College of Physicians Representative; 5Society for Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention Representative; 6Recused from voting on Measure 4 (Antiplatelet Therapy); 7Society for Vascular Medicine Representative; 8American College of Radiology Representative; 9Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Representative; 10Society for Interventional Radiology Representative; 11American Diabetes Association and the PAD Coalition Representative; 12American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation Representative; 13Society for Vascular Nursing Representative; 14Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Representative; 15National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ACCF/AHA/ACR/SCAI/SIR/SVM/SVN/SVS 2010 performance measures for adults with peripheral artery disease

ACCF/AHA/ACR/SCAI/SIR/SVM/SVN/SVS 2010 performance measures for adults with peripheral artery disease. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the American College of Radiology, the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions, the Society for Interventional Radiology, the Society for Vascular Medicine, the Socie

A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the American College of Radiology, the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions, the Society for Interventional Radiology, the Society for Vascular Medicine, the Society for Vascular Nursing, and the Society for Vascular Surgery (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Performance Measures for Peripheral Artery Disease)*,y