Stress Imaging Use and Repeat Revascularization Among Medicare Patients With High-Risk Coronary Artery Disease
University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North CarolinaThe American journal of cardiology (Impact Factor: 3.28). 07/2012; 110(9):1270-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.06.029
The optimal use of stress testing after coronary revascularization remains unclear, and overuse of stress testing might increase the rates of repeat revascularization. We analyzed the association at both the patient and regional level between the use of stress testing and repeat revascularization for a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries receiving revascularization within 30 days of an admission for symptomatic coronary artery disease. The sample consisted of 219,748 Medicare beneficiaries aged >65 years who received percutaneous coronary intervention or cardiac bypass artery grafting after hospital admission for symptomatic coronary artery disease in 2003 to 2004. Medicare claims data through 2008 identified the use of stress testing and repeat revascularization. The associations between the cumulative incidence of stress testing and repeat revascularization were analyzed using linear regression analysis. Within 6 years of the initial revascularization, the cumulative incidence of events was 0.61 for stress testing and 0.23 for repeat revascularization. Most (53.1%) repeat revascularizations were preceded by a stress test. Only 10.3% of repeat revascularization procedures were preceded by myocardial infarction. The 4-year cumulative incidence of repeat revascularization and stress testing varied between the Hospital Referral Regions represented by the sample, and the positive correlation between the rates by the health referral region accounted for only a small portion of the total health referral region variation in revascularization rates. In conclusion, stress testing is commonly performed among Medicare patients after the initial revascularization, and most repeat procedures are performed for stable coronary artery disease. The variation in stress testing patterns only explained a modest fraction of the regional variation in the repeat revascularization rates.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The degree to which financial factors may influence use of cardiac stress imaging procedures is unknown. To examine the association of physician billing and nuclear stress and stress echocardiography testing following coronary revascularization. Using data from a national health insurance carrier, 17,847 patients were identified between November 1, 2004, and June 30, 2007, who had coronary revascularization and an index cardiac outpatient visit more than 90 days following the procedure. Based on overall billings, physicians were classified as billing for both technical (practice/equipment) and professional (supervision/interpretation) fees, professional fees only, or not billing for either. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between physician billing and use of stress testing, after adjusting for patient and other physician factors. Incidence of nuclear and echocardiographic stress tests within 30 days of an index cardiac-related outpatient visit. The overall cumulative incidence of nuclear or echocardiography stress testing within 30 days of the index cardiac-related outpatient visit following revascularization was 12.2% (95% CI, 11.8%-12.7%). The cumulative incidence of nuclear stress testing was 12.6% (95% CI, 12.0%-13.2%), 8.8% (95% CI, 7.5%-10.2%), and 5.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-5.7%) among physicians who billed for technical and professional fees, professional fees only, or neither, respectively. For stress echocardiography, the cumulative incidence of testing was 2.8% (95% CI, 2.5%-3.2%), 1.4% (95% CI, 1.0%-1.9%), and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.6%) among physicians who billed for the technical and professional fees, professional fees only, or neither, respectively. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of nuclear stress testing among patients treated by physicians who billed for technical and professional fees and professional fees only were 2.3 (95% CI, 1.8-2.9) and 1.6 (95% CI, 1.2-2.1), respectively, compared with those patients treated by physicians who did not bill for testing (P < .001). The adjusted OR of stress echocardiography testing among patients treated by physicians billing for both or professional fees only were 12.8 (95% CI, 7.6-21.6) and 7.1 (95% CI, 4.0-12.9), respectively, compared with patients treated by physicians who did not bill for testing (P < .001). Nuclear stress testing and stress echocardiography testing following revascularization were more frequent among patients treated by physicians who billed for technical fees, professional fees, or both compared with those treated by physicians who did not bill for these services.JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 11/2011; 306(18):1993-2000. DOI:10.1001/jama.2011.1604 · 35.29 Impact Factor
Article: ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI): A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Under the auspices of the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC), an appropriateness review was conducted for radionuclide cardiovascular imaging (RNI), specifically gated single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI). The review assessed the risks and benefits of the imaging test for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them based on a scale of 1 to 9, where the upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The mid range (4 to 6) implies that the test may be generally acceptable and may be a reasonable approach for the indication. The indications for this review were primarily drawn from existing clinical practice guidelines and modified based on discussion by the ACCF Appropriateness Criteria Working Group and the Technical Panel members who rated the indications. The method for this review was based on the RAND/UCLA approach for evaluating appropriateness, which blends scientific evidence and practice experience. A modified Delphi technique was used to obtain first- and second-round ratings of 52 clinical indications. The ratings were done by a Technical Panel with diverse membership, including nuclear cardiologists, referring physicians (including an echocardiographer), health services researchers, and a payer (chief medical officer). These results are expected to have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and future research directions. Periodic assessment and updating of criteria will be undertaken as needed.Journal of the American College of Cardiology 11/2005; 46(8):1587-605. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.08.029 · 16.50 Impact Factor
- JACC. Cardiovascular imaging 07/2010; 3(7):789-94. DOI:10.1016/j.jcmg.2010.05.004 · 7.19 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.