Why the study?
The study was conducted to develop quality indicators for evaluating the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity.
The ESC has established 14 quality indicators to standardize and improve the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity.
New QIs enable standardized assessment of cardio-oncology care; extends ESC methodology into measurable toxicity prevention and management.
AIMS: To develop quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity. METHODS AND RESULTS: We followed the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) methodology for QI development which comprises (i) identifying the key domains of care for the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in patients on cancer treatment, (ii) performing a systematic review of the literature to develop candidate QIs, and (iii) selecting of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi process. Work was undertaken in parallel with the writing of the 2022 ESC Guidelines on Cardio-Oncology and in collaboration with the European Haematology Association, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. In total, 5 main and 9 secondary QIs were selected across five domains of care: (i) Structural framework, (ii) Baseline cardiovascular risk assessment, (iii) Cancer therapy related cardiovascular toxicity, (iv) Predictors of outcomes, and (v) Monitoring of cardiovascular complications during cancer therapy. CONCLUSION: We present the ESC Cardio-Oncology QIs with their development process and provide an overview of the scientific rationale for their selection. These indicators are aimed at quantifying and improving the adherence to guideline-recommended clinical practice and improving patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: