Why the study?
Clinical and economic burdens persist across the coronary artery disease care pathway despite advances in PCI, but comprehensive research assessing challenges across this pathway is scarce.
Significant inefficiencies and burdens exist across the CAD care pathway for PCI patients, which may be mitigated by greater integration, interoperability, standardization, and automation.
Clinical and economic burdens exist within the coronary artery disease (CAD) care pathway despite advances in diagnosis and treatment and the increasing utilization of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, research presenting a comprehensive assessment of the challenges across this pathway is scarce. This contemporary review identifies relevant studies related to inefficiencies in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of CAD, including clinician, patient, and economic burdens. Studies demonstrating the benefits of integration and automation within the catheterization laboratory and across the CAD care pathway were also included. Most studies were published in the last 5-10 years and focused on North America and Europe. The review demonstrated multiple potentially avoidable inefficiencies, with a focus on access, appropriate use, conduct, and follow-up related to PCI. Inefficiencies included misdiagnosis, delays in emergency care, suboptimal testing, longer procedure times, risk of recurrent cardiac events, incomplete treatment, and challenges accessing and adhering to post-acute care. Across the CAD pathway, this review revealed that high clinician burnout, complex technologies, radiation, and contrast media exposure, amongst others, negatively impact workflow and patient care. Potential solutions include greater integration and interoperability between technologies and systems, improved standardization, and increased automation to reduce burdens in CAD and improve patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kodeboina et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: