Literature DB >> 10225240

Underuse and overuse of diagnostic testing for coronary artery disease in patients presenting with new-onset chest pain.

D M Carlisle1, L L Leape, S Bickel, R Bell, C Kamberg, B Genovese, W J French, V S Kaushik, P R Mahrer, M H Ellestad, R H Brook, M F Shapiro.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the extent of overuse and underuse of diagnostic testing for coronary artery disease and whether the socioeconomic status, health insurance, gender, and race/ethnicity of a patient influences the use of diagnostic tests. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We identified patients who presented with new-onset chest pain not due to myocardial infarction at one of five Los Angeles-area hospital emergency departments between October 1994 and April 1996. Explicit criteria for diagnostic testing were developed using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, expert panel method. They were applied to data collected by medical record review and patient questionnaire.
RESULTS: Of the 356 patients, 181 met necessity criteria for diagnostic cardiac testing. Of these, 40 (22%) failed to receive necessary tests. Only 7 (3%) of the 215 patients who received some form of cardiac testing had tests that were judged to be inappropriate. Underuse was significantly more common in patients with only a high school education (30% vs 15% for those with some college, P = 0.02) and those without health insurance (34% vs 15% of insured patients, P = 0.01). In a multivariate logistic regression model, only the lack of a post-high school education was a significant predictor of underuse (odds ratio 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.4).
CONCLUSION: Among patients with new-onset chest pain, underuse of diagnostic testing for coronary artery disease was much more common than overuse. Underuse was primarily associated with lower levels of patient education.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10225240     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(99)00051-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  7 in total

1.  The outcomes of outcomes and effectiveness research: impacts and lessons from the first decade.

Authors:  D Stryer; S Tunis; H Hubbard; C Clancy
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Hypothetical ratings of coronary angiography appropriateness: are they associated with actual angiographic findings, mortality, and revascularisation rate? The ACRE study.

Authors:  H Hemingway; A M Crook; S Banerjee; J R Dawson; G Feder; P G Magee; A Wood; S Philpott; A Timmis
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 3.  Race/Ethnicity and overuse of care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Nancy R Kressin; Peter W Groeneveld
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.911

4.  The heterogeneity of clinical practice patterns among an international cohort of pulmonary arterial hypertension experts.

Authors:  John J Ryan; Ghazwan Butrous; Bradley A Maron
Journal:  Pulm Circ       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.017

5.  Economic utility of a blood-based genomic test for the assessment of patients with symptoms suggestive of obstructive coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Louis I Hochheiser; Jessie L Juusola; Mark Monane; Joseph A Ladapo
Journal:  Popul Health Manag       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 2.459

6.  Overuse and underuse of cardiovascular diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for community-dwelling adults: a protocol for a systematic review.

Authors:  Dominic Quinn; David Byrne; Tom Fahey; Rose Anne Kenny; Christine McGarrigle; Emma Wallace; Fiona Boland
Journal:  HRB Open Res       Date:  2021-09-02

Review 7.  Risk stratification for coronary artery disease in multi-ethnic populations: Are there broader considerations for cost efficiency?

Authors:  Pupalan Iyngkaran; William Chan; Danny Liew; Jalal Zamani; John D Horowitz; Michael Jelinek; David L Hare; James A Shaw
Journal:  World J Methodol       Date:  2019-01-18
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.