James W. Choi M.D.

Vasudevan, A., J. W. Choi, G. A. Feghali, A. Y. Kluger, S. R. Lander, K. M. Tecson, M. Sathyamoorthy, J. M. Schussler, R. C. Stoler, R. C. Vallabhan, C. E. Velasco, A. Yoon and P. A. McCullough (2019). “First and recurrent events after percutaneous coronary intervention: implications for survival analyses.” Scand Cardiovasc J Jul 25: 1-6. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

Objectives. Using composite endpoints and/or only first events in clinical research result in information loss and alternative statistical methods which incorporate recurrent event data exist. We compared information-loss under traditional analyses to alternative models. Design. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (Jan2010-Dec2014) and constructed Cox models for a composite endpoint (readmission/death), a shared frailty model for recurrent events, and a joint frailty (JF) model to simultaneously account for recurrent and terminal events and evaluated the impact of heart failure (HF) on the outcome. Results. Among 4901 patients, 2047(41.8%) experienced a readmission or death within 1 year. Of those with recurrent events, 60% had >/=1 readmission and 6% had >4; a total of 121(2.5%) patients died during follow-up. The presence of HF conferred an adjusted Hazard ratio (HR) of 1.32 (95% CI: 1.18-1.47, p < .001) for the risk of composite endpoint (Cox model), 1.44 (95% CI: 1.36-1.52, p < .001) in the frailty model, and 1.34 (95% CI:1.22-1.46, p < .001) in the JF model. However, HF was not associated with death (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.52-1.48, p = .61) in the JF model. Conclusions. Using a composite endpoint and/or only the first event yields substantial loss of information, as many individuals endure >1 event. JF models reduce bias by simultaneously providing event-specific HRs for recurrent and terminal events.

Chalkley, R. A., C. W. Kim, J. W. Choi, W. C. Roberts and J. M. Schussler (2019). “Smeloff-Cutter Mechanical Prosthesis in the Aortic Position for 49 Years.” Am J Cardiol 124(3): 457-459.

Full text of this article.

We describe a 76-year-old male physician who at age 27 underwent replacement of his stenotic aortic valve with a Smeloff-Cutter mechanical prosthesis which functioned normally for 49 years. He died of a noncardiac condition. A normally functioning substitute cardiac valve for this length of time has not been previously reported.

Blankenship, J. C., J. W. Choi, T. S. Das, P. M. McElgunn, D. Mukherjee, L. L. Paxton, R. Piana, J. R. Sauer, C. J. White and P. L. Duffy (2019). “SCAI/ACVP expert consensus statement on cardiovascular catheterization laboratory economics: If the cath lab is your home you should understand its finances.This statement was endorsed by the Alliance of Cardiovascular Professionals (ACVP) in April 2019.” Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 94(1): 123-135.

Full text of this article.

This article is intended for any physician, administrator, or cardiovascular catheterization laboratory (CCL) staff member who desires a fundamental understanding of finances and economics of CCLs in the United States. The authors’ goal is to illuminate general economic principles of CCL operations and provide details that can be used immediately by CCL leaders. Any article on economics in medicine should start by acknowledging the primacy of the principles of medical ethics. While physicians have been trained to act in the best interests of their patients and avoid actions that would harm patients it is vitally important that all professionals in the CCL focus on patients’ needs. Caregivers both at the bedside and in the office must consider how their actions will affect not only the patient they are treating at the time, but others as well. If the best interests of a patient were to conflict with any recommendation in this article, the former should prevail. KEY POINTS: To be successful and financially viable under current payment systems, CCL physicians, and managers must optimize the outcomes and efficiency of care by aligning CCL leadership, strategy, organization, processes, personnel, and culture. Optimizing a CCL’s operating margin (profitability) requires maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses. CCL managers often focus on expense reduction; they should also pay attention to revenue generation. Expense reduction depends on efficiency (on-time starts, short turn-over time, smooth day-to-day schedules), identifying cost-effective materials, and negotiating their price downward. Revenue optimization requires accurate documentation and coding of procedures, comorbidities, and complications. In fee-for-service and bundled payment reimbursement systems, higher volumes of procedures yield higher revenues. New procedures that improve patient care but are expensive can usually be justified by negotiating with vendors for lower prices and including the “halo effect” of collateral services that accompany the new procedure. Fiscal considerations should never eclipse quality concerns. High quality CCL care that prevents complications, increases efficiency, reduces waste, and eliminates unnecessary procedures represents a win for patients, physicians, and CCL administrators.

Blankenship, J. C., J. W. Choi, T. S. Das, P. M. McElgunn, D. Mukherjee, L. L. Paxton, R. Piana, J. R. Sauer, C. J. White and P. L. Duffy (2019). “SCAI/ACVP expert consensus statement on cardiovascular catheterization laboratory economics: If the cath lab is your home you should understand its finances: This statement was endorsed by the Alliance of Cardiovascular Professionals (ACVP) in April 2019.” Catheter Cardiovasc Interv May 19. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

This article is intended for any physician, administrator, or cardiovascular catheterization laboratory (CCL) staff member who desires a fundamental understanding of finances and economics of CCLs in the United States. The authors’ goal is to illuminate general economic principles of CCL operations and provide details that can be used immediately by CCL leaders. Any article on economics in medicine should start by acknowledging the primacy of the principles of medical ethics. While physicians have been trained to act in the best interests of their patients and avoid actions that would harm patients it is vitally important that all professionals in the CCL focus on patients’ needs. Caregivers both at the bedside and in the office must consider how their actions will affect not only the patient they are treating at the time, but others as well. If the best interests of a patient were to conflict with any recommendation in this article, the former should prevail. KEY POINTS: To be successful and financially viable under current payment systems, CCL physicians, and managers must optimize the outcomes and efficiency of care by aligning CCL leadership, strategy, organization, processes, personnel, and culture. Optimizing a CCL’s operating margin (profitability) requires maximizing revenues and minimizing expenses. CCL managers often focus on expense reduction; they should also pay attention to revenue generation. Expense reduction depends on efficiency (on-time starts, short turn-over time, smooth day-to-day schedules), identifying cost-effective materials, and negotiating their price downward. Revenue optimization requires accurate documentation and coding of procedures, comorbidities, and complications. In fee-for-service and bundled payment reimbursement systems, higher volumes of procedures yield higher revenues. New procedures that improve patient care but are expensive can usually be justified by negotiating with vendors for lower prices and including the “halo effect” of collateral services that accompany the new procedure. Fiscal considerations should never eclipse quality concerns. High quality CCL care that prevents complications, increases efficiency, reduces waste, and eliminates unnecessary procedures represents a win for patients, physicians, and CCL administrators.

Xenogiannis, I., D. Karmpaliotis, K. Alaswad, F. A. Jaffer, R. W. Yeh, M. Patel, E. Mahmud, J. W. Choi, M. N. Burke, A. H. Doing, P. Dattilo, C. Toma, A. J. C. Smith, B. Uretsky, O. Krestyaninov, D. Khelimskii, E. Holper, S. Potluri . . . and E. S. Brilakis (2019). “Usefulness of Atherectomy in Chronic Total Occlusion Interventions (from the PROGRESS-CTO Registry).” Am J Cardiol 123(9): 1422-1428.

Full text of this article.

There is limited data on the use of atherectomy during chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared the clinical and procedural characteristics and outcomes of CTO PCIs performed with or without atherectomy in a contemporary multicenter CTO PCI registry. Between 2012 and 2018, 3,607 CTO PCIs were performed at 21 participating centers. Atherectomy was used in 117 (3.2%) cases: rotational atherectomy in 105 cases, orbital atherectomy in 8, and both in 4 cases. Patients in whom atherectomy was used, were older (68 +/- 8 vs 64 +/- 10 years, p <0.0001) and had higher Japan-chronic total occlusion score (3.0 +/- 1.2 vs 2.4 +/- 1.3, p <0.0001). CTO PCI cases in which atherectomy was used had similar technical (91% vs 87%, p=0.240) and procedural (90% vs 85%, p=0.159) success and in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (4% vs 3%, p=0.382) rates. However, atherectomy cases were associated with higher rates of donor vessel injury (4% vs 1%, p=0.031), tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis (2.6% vs 0.4%, p=0.012) and more often required use of a left ventricular assist device (9% vs 5%, p=0.031). Atherectomy cases were associated with longer procedural duration (196 [141, 247] vs 119 [76, 180] minutes, p <0.0001), and higher patient air kerma radiation dose (3.6 [2.5, 5.6] vs 2.8 [1.6, 4.7] Gray, p=0.001). In conclusion, atherectomy is currently performed in approximately 3% of CTO PCI cases and is associated with similar technical and procedural success and overall major adverse cardiac event rates, but higher risk for donor vessel injury and tamponade.