PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

David P Faxon

Publications and source records attributed to David P Faxon.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

A taxonomy for disease management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Disease Management Taxonomy Writing Group.

BACKGROUND: Disease management has shown great promise as a means of reorganizing chronic care and optimizing patient outcomes. Nevertheless, disease management programs are widely heterogeneous and lack a shared definition of disease management, which limits our ability to compare and evaluate different programs. To address this problem, the American Heart Association's Disease Management Taxonomy Writing Group developed a system of classification that can be used both to categorize and compare disease management programs and to inform efforts to identify specific factors associated with effectiveness. METHODS: The AHA Writing Group began with a conceptual model of disease management and its components and subsequently validated this model over a wide range of disease management programs. A systematic MEDLINE search was performed on the terms heart failure, diabetes, and depression, together with disease management, case management, and care management. The search encompassed articles published in English between 1987 and 2005. We then selected studies that incorporated (1) interventions designed to improve outcomes and/or reduce medical resource utilization in patients with heart failure, diabetes, or depression and (2) clearly defined protocols with at least 2 prespecified components traditionally associated with disease management. We analyzed the study protocols and used qualitative research methods to develop a disease management taxonomy with our conceptual model as the organizing framework. RESULTS: The final taxonomy includes the following 8 domains: (1) Patient population is characterized by risk status, demographic profile, and level of comorbidity. (2) Intervention recipient describes the primary targets of disease management intervention and includes patients and caregivers, physicians and allied healthcare providers, and healthcare delivery systems. (3) Intervention content delineates individual components, such as patient education, medication management, peer support, or some form of postacute care, that are included in disease management. (4) Delivery personnel describes the network of healthcare providers involved in the delivery of disease management interventions, including nurses, case managers, physicians, pharmacists, case workers, dietitians, physical therapists, psychologists, and information systems specialists. (5) Method of communication identifies a broad range of disease management delivery systems that may include in-person visitation, audiovisual information packets, and some form of electronic or telecommunication technology. (6) Intensity and complexity distinguish between the frequency and duration of exposure, as well as the mix of program components, with respect to the target for disease management. (7) Environment defines the context in which disease management interventions are typically delivered and includes inpatient or hospital-affiliated outpatient programs, community or home-based programs, or some combination of these factors. (8) Clinical outcomes include traditional, frequently assessed primary and secondary outcomes, as well as patient-centered measures, such as adherence to medication, self-management, and caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: This statement presents a taxonomy for disease management that describes critical program attributes and allows for comparisons across interventions. Routine application of the taxonomy may facilitate better comparisons of structure, process, and outcome measures across a range of disease management programs and should promote uniformity in the design and conduct of studies that seek to validate disease management strategies.

Cardiology↗
PubMed2006

Facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention.

The goal of the initial treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is rapid and effective reperfusion. Randomized trials have demonstrated that primary angioplasty is preferred over thrombolysis if done in a timely manner and by an experienced team. However, due to many factors, performance of primary angioplasty within the goal of 90 min is often not possible. A combined strategy of immediate thrombolysis in the emergency room or in the ambulance followed by angioplasty theoretically could provide early reperfusion with subsequent angioplasty to insure complete reperfusion. Over 17 clinical trials have been reported. Compared with thrombolysis, facilitated angioplasty in the most recent trials has been shown to have a more favorable long-term outcome. Trials comparing facilitated angioplasty with full- or half-dose thrombolysis versus primary angioplasty have been far less favorable with the largest trial to date, the ASSENT (Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Treatment Strategy with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)-4 trial, demonstrating a worse outcome in the primary end point of death, congestive heart failure, or shock at 90 days. Pending the results of the FINESSE (Facilitated Intervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events) trial, current data suggest that facilitated angioplasty does not offer any advantage over primary angioplasty and may be harmful.

Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary↗
PubMed2006

ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Heart Valve Diseases↗
PubMed2006

ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

ACC/AHA 2006 guideline update on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery: focused update on perioperative beta-blocker therapy: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed2006

ACC/AHA 2006 guideline update on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery: focused update on perioperative beta-blocker therapy: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Update the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery): developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Humans↗
PubMed2006

Recommendation to develop strategies to increase the number of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with timely access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Although evidence suggests that primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy in the majority of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), only a minority of patients with STEMI are treated with primary PCI, and of those, only a minority receive the treatment within the recommended 90 minutes after entry into the medical system. Market research conducted by the American Heart Association revealed that those involved in the care of patients with STEMI recognize the multiple barriers that prevent the prompt delivery of primary PCI and agree that it is necessary to develop systems or centers of care that will allow STEMI patients to benefit from primary PCI. The American Heart Association will convene a group of stakeholders (representing the interests of patients, physicians, emergency medical systems, community hospitals, tertiary hospitals, and payers) and quality-of-care and outcomes experts to identify the gaps between the existing and ideal delivery of care for STEMI patients, as well as the requisite policy implications. Working within a framework of guiding principles, the group will recommend strategies to increase the number of STEMI patients with timely access to primary PCI.

Administrative Personnel↗
PubMed2006

ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): executive summary a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease) endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Aorta, Abdominal↗
PubMed2006

ACC/AHA 2005 Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Payment for quality: guiding principles and recommendations: principles and recommendations from the American Heart Association's Reimbursement, Coverage, and Access Policy Development Workgroup.

Payment-for-quality programs are emerging in the wake of rising healthcare costs and a demonstrated need for quality improvement in healthcare delivery in the United States. These programs, also known as "pay-for-performance" or "pay-for-value" programs, attempt to realign financial incentives with the quality of care delivered. The American Heart Association's Reimbursement, Coverage, and Access Policy Development Workgroup provides in this statement a set of principles and recommendations for the development, implementation, and evaluation of these programs. The statement also suggests future areas for research around the realignment of financial incentives to improve both the quality of care delivered and patient outcomes.

American Heart Association↗
PubMed2006

The impact of ejection fraction on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with congestive heart failure: an analysis of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Registry and Dynamic Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) have higher rates of adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A comprehensive analysis of outcomes in patients with CHF in the current era has not been done. We studied the outcomes of patients with CHF who underwent PCI in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) and Dynamic registries. METHODS: We evaluated demographic and angiographic characteristics and the clinical outcomes of patients with CHF in the Dynamic Registry and the PTCA Registry, excluding patients with acute myocardial infarction. In the Dynamic Registry, patients with CHF (n = 503) were compared with patients without CHF (n = 4194), and patients with CHF with a preserved ejection fraction (EF) (n = 134) were compared with patients with CHF who have a reduced EF (n = 199). The patients with CHF in the 1997 through 2001 Dynamic Registry (n = 236) were then similarly compared with patients with CHF in the earlier PTCA Registry (n = 117). RESULTS: In the Dynamic Registry, compared with patients without CHF, patients with CHF had a higher-risk clinical and angiographic profile, and a higher mortality rate both inhospital (2.6% vs 0.4%, P < or = .001) and at 1 year (13.1% vs 3.0%, P < .001). Patients with reduced EF had higher inhospital mortality rates and a trend toward higher mortality at 1 year. The patients with CHF in the Dynamic Registry compared with those in the PTCA Registry had a higher risk profile yet had significantly higher procedural success rates and improved clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although CHF remains a strong predictor of adverse outcomes after PCI, significant improvement seen in the past decade is likely related to improved procedural techniques and improved medical therapy.

Aged↗