Jimmy Zheng1, Paul A Heidenreich2, Shun Kohsaka3, William F Fearon4, Alexander T Sandhu5. 1. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. Electronic address: jimmyz1@stanford.edu. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA; Department of Medicine, Palo Alto VA Veteran's Affairs Hospitals, Palo Alto, California, USA. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/paheidenreich. 3. Department of Cardiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA; Department of Medicine, Palo Alto VA Veteran's Affairs Hospitals, Palo Alto, California, USA. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/wfearonmd. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/ATSandhu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of new-onset heart failure (HF). Although guidelines recommend ischemic evaluation in this population, testing has historically been underutilized. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify contemporary trends in CAD testing for patients with new-onset HF, particularly after publication of the STICHES (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study), and to characterize geographic and clinician-level variability in testing patterns. METHODS: We determined the proportion of patients with incident HF who received CAD testing from 2004 to 2019 using an administrative claims database covering commercial insurance and Medicare. We identified demographic and clinical predictors of CAD testing during the 90 days before and after initial diagnosis. Patients were grouped by their county of residence to assess national variation. Patients were then linked to their primary care physician and/or cardiologist to evaluate variation across clinicians. RESULTS: Among 558,322 patients with new-onset HF, 34.8% underwent CAD testing and 9.3% underwent revascularization. After multivariable adjustment, patients who underwent CAD testing were more likely to be younger, male, diagnosed in an acute care setting, and have systolic dysfunction or recent cardiogenic shock. Incidence of CAD testing remained flat without significant change post-STICHES. Covariate-adjusted testing rates varied from 20% to 45% across counties. The likelihood of testing was higher among patients co-managed by a cardiologist (adjusted OR: 5.12; 95% CI: 4.98-5.27) but varied substantially across cardiologists (IQR: 50.9%-62.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with new-onset HF across inpatient and outpatient settings did not receive timely testing for CAD. Substantial variability in testing persists across regions and clinicians.
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of new-onset heart failure (HF). Although guidelines recommend ischemic evaluation in this population, testing has historically been underutilized. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify contemporary trends in CAD testing for patients with new-onset HF, particularly after publication of the STICHES (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study), and to characterize geographic and clinician-level variability in testing patterns. METHODS: We determined the proportion of patients with incident HF who received CAD testing from 2004 to 2019 using an administrative claims database covering commercial insurance and Medicare. We identified demographic and clinical predictors of CAD testing during the 90 days before and after initial diagnosis. Patients were grouped by their county of residence to assess national variation. Patients were then linked to their primary care physician and/or cardiologist to evaluate variation across clinicians. RESULTS: Among 558,322 patients with new-onset HF, 34.8% underwent CAD testing and 9.3% underwent revascularization. After multivariable adjustment, patients who underwent CAD testing were more likely to be younger, male, diagnosed in an acute care setting, and have systolic dysfunction or recent cardiogenic shock. Incidence of CAD testing remained flat without significant change post-STICHES. Covariate-adjusted testing rates varied from 20% to 45% across counties. The likelihood of testing was higher among patients co-managed by a cardiologist (adjusted OR: 5.12; 95% CI: 4.98-5.27) but varied substantially across cardiologists (IQR: 50.9%-62.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with new-onset HF across inpatient and outpatient settings did not receive timely testing for CAD. Substantial variability in testing persists across regions and clinicians.
Authors: Mihai Gheorghiade; George Sopko; Leonardo De Luca; Eric J Velazquez; John D Parker; Philip F Binkley; Zygmunt Sadowski; Krzysztof S Golba; David L Prior; Jean L Rouleau; Robert O Bonow Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Mark H Drazner; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen A Geraci; Tamara Horwich; James L Januzzi; Maryl R Johnson; Edward K Kasper; Wayne C Levy; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; John J V McMurray; Judith E Mitchell; Pamela N Peterson; Barbara Riegel; Flora Sam; Lynne W Stevenson; W H Wilson Tang; Emily J Tsai; Bruce L Wilkoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-06-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Steven A Farmer; Justin Lenzo; David J Magid; Jerry H Gurwitz; David H Smith; Grace Hsu; Sue Hee Sung; Alan S Go Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-06-18
Authors: Rohan Khera; Ambarish Pandey; Colby R Ayers; Vijay Agusala; Sandi L Pruitt; Ethan A Halm; Mark H Drazner; Sandeep R Das; James A de Lemos; Jarett D Berry Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Christoph U Correll; Marco Solmi; Nicola Veronese; Beatrice Bortolato; Stella Rosson; Paolo Santonastaso; Nita Thapa-Chhetri; Michele Fornaro; Davide Gallicchio; Enrico Collantoni; Giorgio Pigato; Angela Favaro; Francesco Monaco; Cristiano Kohler; Davy Vancampfort; Philip B Ward; Fiona Gaughran; André F Carvalho; Brendon Stubbs Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Eric J Velazquez; Kerry L Lee; Marek A Deja; Anil Jain; George Sopko; Andrey Marchenko; Imtiaz S Ali; Gerald Pohost; Sinisa Gradinac; William T Abraham; Michael Yii; Dorairaj Prabhakaran; Hanna Szwed; Paolo Ferrazzi; Mark C Petrie; Christopher M O'Connor; Pradit Panchavinnin; Lilin She; Robert O Bonow; Gena Roush Rankin; Robert H Jones; Jean-Lucien Rouleau Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ricky Camplain; Anna Kucharska-Newton; Carmen C Cuthbertson; Jacqueline D Wright; Alvaro Alonso; Gerardo Heiss Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Michele Casper; Michael R Kramer; Harrison Quick; Linda J Schieb; Adam S Vaughan; Sophia Greer Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 29.983