Steven A Farmer1, Justin Lenzo2, David J Magid3, Jerry H Gurwitz4, David H Smith5, Grace Hsu6, Sue Hee Sung6, Alan S Go7. 1. Center for Cardiovascular Innovation, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Management and Strategy, Kellogg School of Management, Evanston, Illinois. Electronic address: safarmer@gwu.edu. 2. Department of Management and Strategy, Kellogg School of Management, Evanston, Illinois. 3. Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, Colorado. 4. Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts; Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. 5. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon. 6. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, California. 7. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, California; Departments of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the use of cardiovascular testing for patients with incident heart failure (HF) hospitalization who participated in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored Cardiovascular Research Network (CVRN) Heart Failure study. BACKGROUND: HF is a common cause of hospitalization, and testing and treatment patterns may differ substantially between providers. Testing choices have important implications for the cost and quality of care. METHODS: Crude and adjusted cardiovascular testing rates were calculated for each participating hospital. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine hospital testing rates after adjustment for hospital-level patient case mix. RESULTS: Of the 37,099 patients in the CVRN Heart Failure study, 5,878 patients were hospitalized with incident HF between 2005 and 2008. Of these, evidence of cardiovascular testing was available for 4,650 (79.1%) patients between 14 days before the incident HF admission and ending 6 months after the incident discharge. We compared crude and adjusted cardiovascular testing rates at the hospital level because the majority of testing occurred during the incident HF hospitalization. Of patients who underwent testing, 4,085 (87.9%) had an echocardiogram, 4,345 (93.4%) had a systolic function assessment, and 1,714 (36.9%) had a coronary artery disease assessment. Crude and adjusted testing rates varied markedly across the profiled hospitals, for individual testing modalities (e.g., echocardiography, stress echocardiography, nuclear stress testing, and left heart catheterization) and for specific clinical indications (e.g., systolic function assessment and coronary artery disease assessment). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with newly diagnosed HF, we did not observe widespread overuse of cardiovascular testing in the 6 months following incident HF hospitalization relative to existing HF guidelines. Variations in testing were greatest for assessment of ischemia, in which testing guidelines are less certain.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the use of cardiovascular testing for patients with incident heart failure (HF) hospitalization who participated in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored Cardiovascular Research Network (CVRN) Heart Failure study. BACKGROUND: HF is a common cause of hospitalization, and testing and treatment patterns may differ substantially between providers. Testing choices have important implications for the cost and quality of care. METHODS: Crude and adjusted cardiovascular testing rates were calculated for each participating hospital. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine hospital testing rates after adjustment for hospital-level patient case mix. RESULTS: Of the 37,099 patients in the CVRN Heart Failure study, 5,878 patients were hospitalized with incident HF between 2005 and 2008. Of these, evidence of cardiovascular testing was available for 4,650 (79.1%) patients between 14 days before the incident HF admission and ending 6 months after the incident discharge. We compared crude and adjusted cardiovascular testing rates at the hospital level because the majority of testing occurred during the incident HF hospitalization. Of patients who underwent testing, 4,085 (87.9%) had an echocardiogram, 4,345 (93.4%) had a systolic function assessment, and 1,714 (36.9%) had a coronary artery disease assessment. Crude and adjusted testing rates varied markedly across the profiled hospitals, for individual testing modalities (e.g., echocardiography, stress echocardiography, nuclear stress testing, and left heart catheterization) and for specific clinical indications (e.g., systolic function assessment and coronary artery disease assessment). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with newly diagnosed HF, we did not observe widespread overuse of cardiovascular testing in the 6 months following incident HF hospitalization relative to existing HF guidelines. Variations in testing were greatest for assessment of ischemia, in which testing guidelines are less certain.
Authors: M A Quiñones; B H Greenberg; H A Kopelen; C Koilpillai; M C Limacher; D M Shindler; B J Shelton; D H Weiner Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; James K Min; Rory Hachamovitch; Eric D Peterson; Robert C Hendel; Pamela K Woodard; Daniel S Berman; Pamela S Douglas Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-03
Authors: Mark E Patterson; Adrian F Hernandez; Bradley G Hammill; Gregg C Fonarow; Eric D Peterson; Kevin A Schulman; Lesley H Curtis Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joseph S Ross; Jersey Chen; Zhenqiu Lin; Héctor Bueno; Jeptha P Curtis; Patricia S Keenan; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Geoffrey Schreiner; John A Spertus; Maria T Vidán; Yongfei Wang; Yun Wang; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Jeptha P Curtis; Seth I Sokol; Yongfei Wang; Saif S Rathore; Dennis T Ko; Farid Jadbabaie; Edward L Portnay; Stephen J Marshalko; Martha J Radford; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-08-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andrew P Ambrosy; Jerry H Gurwitz; Grace H Tabada; Andrew Artz; Stanley Schrier; Sunil V Rao; Huiman X Barnhart; Kristi Reynolds; David H Smith; Pamela N Peterson; Sue Hee Sung; Harvey Jay Cohen; Alan S Go Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2019-10-01
Authors: Jimmy Zheng; Paul A Heidenreich; Shun Kohsaka; William F Fearon; Alexander T Sandhu Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 27.203
Authors: Vinay Kini; Fenton H McCarthy; Sheeva Rajaei; Andrew J Epstein; Paul A Heidenreich; Peter W Groeneveld Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Erin McGuinn; Theodore Warsavage; Mary E Plomondon; Javier A Valle; P Michael Ho; Stephen W Waldo Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Ajay J Kirtane; Darshan Doshi; Martin B Leon; John M Lasala; E Magnus Ohman; William W O'Neill; Adhir Shroff; Mauricio G Cohen; Igor F Palacios; Nirat Beohar; Nir Uriel; Navin K Kapur; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; William Lombardi; George D Dangas; Manish A Parikh; Gregg W Stone; Jeffrey W Moses Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Darshan Doshi; Ori Ben-Yehuda; Machaon Bonafede; Noam Josephy; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Manish A Parikh; Jeffrey W Moses; Gregg W Stone; Martin B Leon; Allan Schwartz; Ajay J Kirtane Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 27.203
Authors: Vinay Kini; Bridget Mosley; Sridharan Raghavan; Prateeti Khazanie; Steven M Bradley; David J Magid; P Michael Ho; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 5.501