Literature DB >> 24093861

Impact of choice of imaging modality accompanying outpatient exercise stress testing on outcomes and resource use after revascularization for acute coronary syndromes.

Jerome J Federspiel1, Bimal R Shah, Leslee J Shaw, Frederick A Masoudi, Patricia P Chang, Sally C Stearns, Daniel W Mudrick, Patricia A Cowper, Cynthia L Green, Pamela S Douglas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Exercise stress testing is commonly obtained after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We compared the relationships between exercise echocardiography and nuclear testing after ACS-related PCI on outcomes and resource use.
METHODS: Longitudinal observational study using fee-for-service Medicare claims to identify patients undergoing outpatient exercise stress testing with imaging within 15 months after PCI performed for ACS between 2003 and 2004.
RESULTS: Of 63,100 patients undergoing stress testing 3 to 15 months post-PCI, 31,731 (50.3%) underwent an exercise stress test with imaging. Among 29,279 patients undergoing exercise stress testing with imaging, 15.5% received echocardiography. Echocardiography recipients had higher rates of repeat stress testing (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.60, CI 2.19-3.10) compared with those undergoing nuclear imaging in the 90 days after testing, but lower rates of revascularization (adjusted HR 0.87, CI 0.76-0.98) and coronary angiography (adjusted HR 0.88, CI 0.80-0.97). None of these differences persisted subsequent to 90 days after stress testing. Rates of death and readmission for myocardial infarction rates were similar. Total Medicare payments were lower initially after echocardiography (incremental difference $498, CI 488-507), an effect attributed primarily to lower reimbursement for the stress test itself, but not significantly different after 14 months after testing.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study using administrative data, echocardiography recipients initially had fewer invasive procedures but higher rates of repeat testing than nuclear testing recipients. However, these differences between echo and nuclear testing did not persist over longer time frames.
© 2013.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24093861      PMCID: PMC3874387          DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.07.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  18 in total

1.  Determinants of risk and its temporal variation in patients with normal stress myocardial perfusion scans: what is the warranty period of a normal scan?

Authors:  Rory Hachamovitch; Sean Hayes; John D Friedman; Ishac Cohen; Leslee J Shaw; Guido Germano; Daniel S Berman
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2003-04-16       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Peripheral arterial disease: therapeutic confidence of CT versus digital subtraction angiography and effects on additional imaging recommendations.

Authors:  Miraude E A P M Adriaensen; Marc C J M Kock; Theo Stijnen; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Hero van Urk; Peter M T Pattynama; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-09-09       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Variable selection for propensity score models.

Authors:  M Alan Brookhart; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Til Stürmer
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Stress echocardiography, stress single-photon-emission computed tomography and electron beam computed tomography for the assessment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of diagnostic performance.

Authors:  Majanka H Heijenbrok-Kal; Kirsten E Fleischmann; M G Myriam Hunink
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.749

5.  Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.

Authors:  A Elixhauser; C Steiner; D R Harris; R M Coffey
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Patterns and predictors of stress testing modality after percutaneous coronary stenting: data from the NCDR(®).

Authors:  Jerome J Federspiel; Daniel W Mudrick; Bimal R Shah; Sally C Stearns; Frederick A Masoudi; Patricia A Cowper; Cynthia L Green; Pamela S Douglas
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2012-10

7.  Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease.

Authors:  William E Boden; Robert A O'Rourke; Koon K Teo; Pamela M Hartigan; David J Maron; William J Kostuk; Merril Knudtson; Marcin Dada; Paul Casperson; Crystal L Harris; Bernard R Chaitman; Leslee Shaw; Gilbert Gosselin; Shah Nawaz; Lawrence M Title; Gerald Gau; Alvin S Blaustein; David C Booth; Eric R Bates; John A Spertus; Daniel S Berman; G B John Mancini; William S Weintraub
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Incremental cost-effectiveness of exercise echocardiography vs. SPECT imaging for the evaluation of stable chest pain.

Authors:  Leslee J Shaw; Thomas H Marwick; Daniel S Berman; Stephen Sawada; Gary V Heller; Charles Vasey; D Douglas Miller
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2006-09-26       Impact factor: 29.983

9.  Marked differences between patients referred for stress echocardiography and myocardial perfusion imaging studies.

Authors:  Bradley A Bart; Daryl A Erlien; Charles A Herzog; Richard W Asinger
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.749

10.  Clinical progression of incidental, asymptomatic lesions discovered during culprit vessel coronary intervention.

Authors:  Ruchira Glaser; Faith Selzer; David P Faxon; Warren K Laskey; Howard A Cohen; James Slater; Katherine M Detre; Robert L Wilensky
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2004-12-27       Impact factor: 29.690

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.