1 / 96

COLLABORATION IN CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS: A NON-ZERO SOLUTION

COLLABORATION IN CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS: A NON-ZERO SOLUTION. Department of Surgery Grand Rounds April 4, 2012. DISCLOSURES. No financial conflicts Off-label uses of devices. ASSERTIONS.

media
Download Presentation

COLLABORATION IN CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS: A NON-ZERO SOLUTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. COLLABORATION IN CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS: A NON-ZERO SOLUTION Department of Surgery Grand Rounds April 4, 2012

  2. DISCLOSURES • No financial conflicts • Off-label uses of devices

  3. ASSERTIONS • Traditional barriers between medical specialties result in a provider-centric rather than a patient-centrichealthcare system • These barriers are no longer compatible with the effective application of today’s interventional technologies • Elimination of these barriers improves patient outcomes (win) and offers a non-zero opportunity for providers (win-win)

  4. Traditional barriers between medical specialties result in a provider-centric rather than a patient-centric healthcare system

  5. ORGANIZED BY PROVIER SKILL SET NOT PATIENTS CONDITION Conditions-Disease Process Specialties-Skills/Knowledge Cardiology Interventional Cardiology Cardiac Surgery Vascular Surgery Radiology • Coronary Artery Disease • Valvular Disease • Heart Failure • Aortic Disease • Peripheral Vascular Disease

  6. CARE IS DECENTRALIZED • Patients are forced to seek care sequentially from various subspecialites (eg multiple appts) • Lack of centralization results in poor information transfer between providers and duplicative care • Ultimately, patients forced to make decisions based on complex information provided by multiple disparate sources with competing interests Interventional Cardiology General Cardiology Treatment Surgery

  7. QUICK POLL • What is the difference between a “root aneurysm” and a “AAA”? • Who is most appropriate to manage these conditions?

  8. ANSWER • When most physicians don’t know the differences and appropriate treatment . . . Why do we expect patients to know where to seek care. . . • Cardiology? • Interventional Cardiology? • Cardiac Surgery? • Vascular Surgery? • Radiology?

  9. PATIENT CENTRIC MODEL Diagnostics Referring Disease-Specific “Clinic” (eg, CAD, Valve, HF, Ao) w Cards/Imaging/IC/CVS Treatment

  10. REASONS FOR DIVISIONS • Cultural • Education/skill sets/knowledge base • How physicians are identified • Mentors/Colleagues/Interests • Resources • Tools • Physically location • Office space • Point of service (Clinic vs OR vsCath Lab) • Competition • Resentment • “You only refer me your disasters . . . and your complications . . . and at night/weekends”

  11. These barriers are no longer compatible with the effective application of today’s interventional technologies

  12. TREATMENT OPTIONS Drugs Open Surgery

  13. TREATMENT OPTIONS • Its clear who provides which services • More likely to be complementary, less likely competing Medical Physician Surgeon Drugs Open Surgery

  14. ERA OF INTERVENTIONS • Implantation pacemaker -1958 • Balloon embolectomy - 1960 • Angioplasty – 1974 • Coronary angioplasty – 1977 • Implantable ICD - 1980 • Cardiac ablation – 1980s • Self expanding vascular stent – 1985 • Endovascular aneurysm repair – 1987 • Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair – 1994 • Transcatheter valves - 2002

  15. CONTINUUM OF INVASIVENESS OF THERAPY Drugs MIS Open Surgery Hybrid Interventions

  16. TAVR

  17. TAVR Procedural Steps Specialty Rads/Cards/CVS IC/VS CVS CVS/IC IC IC CVS • Planning CT and echo: Imaging for aorta, aortic valve, lower extremities • Vascular access • Percutaneous • Femoral, iliac, apical, axillary, aortic • Pass large bore sheath • Currently approved device is only slightly smaller in caliber than a garden hose • Cross the aortic valve • Balloon valvuloplasty/valve replacement • Under echo and fluoro guidance • Vascular repair

  18. ACCESS FOR TAVR

  19. DEFINITION • Team - Comprises a group of people linked in a common purpose

  20. TEAM • Have members with complementary skills and generate synergy. • Especially appropriate for conducting tasks that are high in complexity and have many interdependent subtasks. • Allow each member to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses • Improve on what is possible for an individual actor

  21. IN HEALTHCARE, “TEAM” MEMBERS OFTEN HAVE NEARLY IDENTICAL SKILLS

  22. Eliminations of these barriers improves patient outcomes and offers a non-zero opportunity for providers

  23. REASONS FOR DIVISIONS • Cultural • Education/skill sets/knowledge base • How physicians are identified • Mentors/Colleagues/Interests • Resources • Tools • Physically location • Office space • Point of service (Clinic vs OR vsCath Lab) • Competition • Resentment • “You only refer me your disasters . . . and your complications . . . and at night/weekends”

  24. ZERO SUM GAME • Participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). • For one to gain, another must loss • Example: if one person eats a piece of a cake there is less cake for the other partiers

  25. STENT WARS • Coronary Revascularization – different competing therapies offered by different specialties • PCI/IC vsCABG/CTS • Peripheral Revascularization – a different therapy from one field, multiple specialties offering an alternative competing therapy • Vascular vsIR vs IC • Dominate interaction between 4 fields: CTS, IC, IR, and Vasc • Not collegial but adversarial/competative

  26. NON-ZERO SUM “The more complex societies get . . . the more complex the networks of interdependence. . . the more people are forced in their own interests to find. . . [non-zero] win-win solutions instead of win-lose solutions. . . We find as our interdependence increases . . . we do better when other people do better as well” —an ex-US President, December 2000

  27. GAME THEORY • Zero-sum • participant's gain (or loss) of utility is exactly balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). • If one gains, another losses; only Win-Lose • Example: cuts and eats a piece of cake there is less cake for the other partiers • Non-zero-sum • a participant's gain (or loss) of utility is not balanced by the losses (or gains) of the utility of the other participant(s). • Win-Win (and Lose-Lose) scenarios exist • Example: Prisoners’ dilemma

  28. PRISONERS DILEMMA • The gains of one player are not equally offset by the losses of the other. • If non-cooperation, they get total 40 years • If both cooperate, total 2 years in prison

  29. REVELATION • 75 cardiac surgery programs and 79 cath labs in a 25 mile radius • What if we work together and . . . try to take cases from guys across the street . . . rather than cases from the guys across the hall?

  30. OUR EXPERIMENT • Create a team composed of members with different skills sets/from different disciplines • Cardiology • Vascular surgery • Radiology • Looked for opportunities to collaborate to expand our services • Leverage unique skills and existing systems • Focus on patient centric care • Interventional Cardiology • Cardiac Surgery

  31. KEYS TO SUCCESS

  32. TRANSPARENCY/SHARE THE WORK • Coronary revascularization cases discussed with both IC and CTS • Valve cases discussed valve conf and valve clinic • Aortic cases discussed aortic confand valve clinic

  33. LEVERAGE ESTABLISHED SYSTEMS • Example: ECMO • Emergency surgery only exists in Level 1 Trauma Centers and on TV • It takes 1-3 hours to open an OR • Cath lab can be activated in 30 mins or less • >80% of ECMO is initiated in the cath lab • Faster (and cheaper) • Also allows an opportunity to collaborate

  34. COMMITMENT TO PURPOSE • 73yo Jehovah's Witness is transferred from OSH after being loaded with plavix with a diagnosis of Type A dissection • Accepted by cardiology (AS) • Repeat CT (KD) performed read by contained rupture AscAo • Reviewed by Vasc (RM) and CTS (MR) • Underwent replacement of AscAo/Hemiarch (MR) POD #4 • Discharged to rehab on POD #10 • Pt will return as outpatient for PCI

  35. AO DEBRACHING/REOP ARCH Darwin Eton, MD Professor of Surgery

  36. A B

  37. D

  38. POSITIVE STRESS TEST STENT LAD

  39. Cervical Debranching LCCA RCCA

  40. RCCA RAx LCCA LScA

More Related