Clinical expert consensus statement on best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions

The cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) is a setting in which elective, urgent, and emergent percutaneous procedures are performed. This poses challenges to maintaining and prioritizing high quality care and patient safety. Nonetheless, process expectations of a high-quality CCL include appropriate periprocedural communication, clinical management, documentation, and universal protocol. Regulations primarily targeted at open surgical operating rooms have the potential to negatively impact care because they may mandate focus on performance measures that are not necessarily relevant to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. For example, routine site marking for percutaneous access is irrelevant for most patients since failure to obtain access on one side (e.g., right femoral artery) simply leads to attempting access on the other side (e.g., left femoral artery). Instead, directives should be tailored to the percutaneous procedure setting to assure quality and optimal patient safety. This document will therefore provide expert consensus opinion on a number of issues pertaining to ‘‘best practices’’ within the CCL, focusing on quality and safety during each step of the process. The writing committee acknowledges a dearth in high-quality published studies in this area, making many of the enclosed recommendations based primarily on expert consensus. Although references are provided when available, further research specifically in catheterization laboratory processes and quality improvement is needed. The document is divided into ‘‘best practices’’ that should be performed during the preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure settings for diagnostic cardiac catheterization and coronary intervention, to be consistent with the typical patient flow into and out of the CCL. Despite the long history of cardiac catheterization that dates back several decades, a document describing these ‘‘best practices’’ has not yet been written. The purpose of this document is not to represent all acceptable practices, but to provide consensus opinion on what would currently be considered ‘‘best practices’’ as future goals for catheterization laboratories.

[1]  S. Allaqaband,et al.  Prevention of contrast‐induced acute kidney injury in patients with stable chronic renal disease undergoing elective percutaneous coronary and peripheral interventions: Randomized comparison of two preventive strategies , 2012, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[2]  Act Investigators Acetylcysteine for Prevention of Renal Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Coronary and Peripheral Vascular Angiography: Main Results From the Randomized Acetylcysteine for Contrast-Induced Nephropathy Trial (ACT) , 2011, Circulation.

[3]  S. Bailey,et al.  Quality assessment and improvement in interventional cardiology: A position statement of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, part 1: Standards for quality assessment and improvement in interventional cardiology , 2011, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[4]  S. Balter,et al.  Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory , 2011, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[5]  R. Mehran,et al.  SCAI consensus document on occupational radiation exposure to the pregnant cardiologist and technical personnel. , 2011, Heart, lung & circulation.

[6]  R. Mehran,et al.  SCAI consensus document on occupational radiation exposure to the pregnant cardiologist and technical personnel , 2011, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[7]  D. Holmes,et al.  Development and Validation of Risk Adjustment Models for Long-Term Mortality and Myocardial Infarction Following Percutaneous Coronary Interventions , 2010, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[8]  J. Douketis,et al.  Safety of uninterrupted anticoagulation in patients requiring elective coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and metaanalysis. , 2010, Chest.

[9]  Julie A Conrardy,et al.  Determining the state of knowledge for implementing the universal protocol recommendations: an integrative review of the literature. , 2010, AORN journal.

[10]  Elizabeth R DeLong,et al.  Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. , 2010, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  H. Krumholz Informed consent to promote patient-centered care. , 2010, JAMA.

[12]  I. Malik,et al.  Metformin: safety in cardiac patients , 2010, Postgraduate Medical Journal.

[13]  R. Harrington,et al.  Defining the length of stay following percutaneous coronary intervention , 2009, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[14]  Wallace J Hamel,et al.  Femoral artery closure after cardiac catheterization. , 2009, Critical care nurse.

[15]  S. McNamara Preventive Measures for Wrong Site, Wrong Person, and Wrong Procedure Error in the Perioperative Setting , 2008 .

[16]  Gabriel E. Soto,et al.  Converting the Informed Consent From a Perfunctory Process to an Evidence-Based Foundation for Patient Decision Making , 2008, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[17]  S. Pocock,et al.  Development and validation of a prognostic risk score for major bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention via the femoral approach. , 2007, European heart journal.

[18]  I. Piña,et al.  ACCF/AHA/SCAI 2007 update of the clinical competence statement on cardiac interventional procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/American College of Physicians Task Force on Clinical Competence and Training (writing Committee to Update the 199 , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[19]  P. Terry,et al.  Informed consent in clinical medicine. , 2007, Chest.

[20]  C. Rihal,et al.  Ambulation 1 hour after diagnostic cardiac catheterization: a prospective study of 1009 procedures. , 2006, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[21]  P. Block,et al.  Infection control guidelines for the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Society guidelines revisited , 2006, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[22]  G. Stone,et al.  A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  M. Eckman,et al.  Screening for the Risk for Bleeding or Thrombosis , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[24]  K. Oldroyd,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention: obtaining consent and preparing patients for follow-on procedures , 2001, Heart.

[25]  H V Anderson,et al.  The American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry™ (ACC-NCDR™): building a national clinical data repository , 2001 .

[26]  M A Hlatky,et al.  American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on cardiac catheterization laboratory standards. A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. , 2001 .

[27]  H. Herrmann Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2001 .

[28]  E. Uslenghi,et al.  Ambulation three hours after elective cardiac catheterisation through the femoral artery. , 1996, Heart.

[29]  R. Patterson,et al.  Two pretreatment regimens for high-risk patients receiving radiographic contrast media. , 1984, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.

[30]  S. Bailey,et al.  CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE Original Studies Quality Assessment and Improvement in Interventional Cardiology: A Position Statement of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Part II: Public Reporting and Risk Adjustment , 2011 .

[31]  R. Berg,et al.  A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2010 .

[32]  ACR PRACTICE GUIDELINE FOR IMAGING PREGNANT OR POTENTIALLY PREGNANT ADOLESCENTS AND WOMEN WITH IONIZING RADIATION , 2008 .

[33]  D. Dodd The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions , 2007 .

[34]  Welcome Guimera Practice Guidelines for Sedation and Analgesia by Non- Anesthesiologists , 2005 .

[35]  Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. A report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists. , 1996, Anesthesiology.