Aims It is increasingly recognised that tools are required for assessing and benchmarking quality of care in order to improve it. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) is developing a suite of quality indicators (QIs) to evaluate cardiovascular care and support the delivery of evidence-based care. This paper describes the methodology used for their development. Methods and Results We propose a four-step process for the development of the ESC QIs. For a specific clinical area with a gap in care delivery, the QI development process includes: 1) the identification of key domains of care by constructing a conceptual framework of care; 2) the construction of candidate QIs by conducting a systematic review of the literature; 3) the selection of a final set of QIs by obtaining expert opinions using the modified Delphi method; and 4) the undertaking of a feasibility assessment by evaluating different ways of defining the QI specifications for the proposed data collection source. For each of the four steps, key methodological areas need to be addressed to inform the implementation process and avoid misinterpretation of the measurement results. Conclusion Detailing the methodology for the ESC QIs construction enables healthcare providers to develop valid and feasible metrics to measure and improve the quality of cardiovascular care. As such, high-quality evidence may be translated into clinical practice and the ‘evidence-practice’ gap closed.

AF is common in the setting of MI and is associated with a higher risk of composite cardiovascular outcome and the individual components; mortality, reinfarction and ischaemic stroke, respectively. No major difference in outcome was observed between AF subtypes. No difference in outcome for AF was observed between the NSTEMI and STEMI cohort.

IMPORTANCEInflammation promotes cardiovascular disease and anti-inflammatory treatment reduces cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It is unclear how inflammation mediated by interleukin 6 (IL-6) in patients with CKD is linked to cardiovascular disease.OBJECTIVE To investigate associations between IL-6 and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic coronary syndrome in association with kidney function. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter cohort study included patients enrolled at 663 centers in 39 countries with chronic coronary syndrome who were included in the Stabilization of Atherosclerotic Plaque by Initiation of Darapladib Therapy (STABILITY) trial. Patients were enrolled between December 2008 and April 2010 and were followed up for a median length of 3.7 years. Analysis in this substudy began September 2020.EXPOSURES Exposures were IL-6 and creatinine estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), which were collected at baseline. Associations between continuous and categorical levels (<2.0 ng/L vs Ն2.0 ng/L) of IL-6 and cardiovascular outcomes were tested in association with eGFR cutoffs (normal eGFR level [Ն90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ], mildly decreased eGFR level [60-90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ], and moderately to severely decreased eGFR level [<60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ]).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Main outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTSThis substudy of the STABILITY trial included 14 611 patients with available IL-6 levels at baseline. The median (interquartile range) age was 65 (59-71) years, and 2700 (18.5%) were female. During follow-up, MACE occurred in 1459 individuals (10.0%). Higher levels of IL-6 were in continuous models independently associated with risk of MACE (P < .001) in all CKD strata. Using predefined strata, elevated IL-6 level (Ն2.0 vs <2.0 ng/L) was associated with increased risk of MACE at normal kidney function (2.9% vs 1.9% events/y [hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.78]), mild CKD (3.3% vs 1.9% [hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.35-1.83]), and moderate to severe CKD (5.0% vs 2.9% [hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.28-1.99]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn patients with chronic coronary syndrome, elevated levels of IL-6 were associated with risk of MACE in all CKD strata. Thus, IL-6 and CKD stage may help when identifying patients with chronic coronary syndrome for anti-inflammatory treatment.

ObjectiveThe universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI) differentiates MI due to oxygen supply/demand mismatch (type 2) from MI due to plaque rupture (type 1) as well as from myocardial injuries of non-ischaemic or multifactorial nature. The purpose of this study was to investigate how often physicians agree in this classification and what factors lead to agreement or disagreement.MethodsA total of 1328 patients diagnosed with MI at eight different Swedish hospitals 2011 were included. All patients were retrospectively reclassified into different MI or myocardial injury subtypes by two independent specially trained physicians, strictly adhering to the third universal definition of MI.ResultsOverall, there was a moderate interobserver agreement with a kappa coefficient (κ) of 0.55 in this classification. There was substantial agreement when distinguishing type 1 MI (κ: 0.61), compared with moderate agreement when distinguishing type 2 MI (κ: 0.54). In multivariate logistic regression analyses, ST elevation MI (P<0.001), performed coronary angiography (P<0.001) and larger changes in troponin levels (P=0.023) independently made the physicians agree significantly more often, while they disagreed more often with symptoms of dyspnoea (P<0.001), higher systolic blood pressure (P=0.001) and higher C reactive protein levels on admission (P=0.016).ConclusionDistinguishing MI types is challenging also for trained adjudicators. Although strictly adhering to the third universal definition of MI, differentiation between type 1 MI, type 2 MI and myocardial injury only gave a moderate rate of interobserver agreement. More precise and clinically applicable criteria for the current classification, particularly for type 2 MI diagnosis, are urgently needed.

Aims Data standards are consensual specifications for the representation of data arising from different sources. If provided with internationally harmonised variables, permissible values, and clinical definitions they have the potential to enable reliable between and within country analysis of care and outcomes. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) is a European Society of Cardiology (ESC) project that allows participating countries to collect patient data to undertake quality improvement, observational studies, drug and device surveillance, and registry-based randomised controlled trials for cardiovascular conditions. This document describes the methodology for development of harmonised data standards for EuroHeart. Methods and results We adopted a five-step process for the development of harmonised data standards. The process includes: (1) identification of clinical domains for data standard development by evaluating specific cardiovascular conditions with high prevalence and opportunities for quality improvement; (2) construction of data standard specifications by systematic review of the literature; (3) selection of variables by a domain specific Working Group using a modified Delphi method; (4) validation of data standards by a domain specific Reference Group; and (5) implementation of the developed data standards into an IT platform. Conclusion This document describes the approach adopted by EuroHeart for the development of clinical data standards for cardiovascular disease. The methodology has been developed and is used by EuroHeart to create a suite of international data standards for cardiovascular diseases. The EuroHeart data standards may be used to systematically capture individual patient data about clinical care and for research.