Appropriateness of cardiac care
1 / 72

Appropriateness of Cardiac Care - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Appropriateness of Cardiac Care. 4/11/2012 Paul Heidenreich, MD, MS Palo Alto VA. Relative Relationships. Served on American College of Cardiology (ACC) appropriateness rating panel for echocardiography Currently on writing committee for ACC ICD/CRT appropriateness criteria

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Appropriateness of Cardiac Care' - xanthus-fox

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Appropriateness of cardiac care

Appropriateness of Cardiac Care


Paul Heidenreich, MD, MS

Palo Alto VA

Relative relationships
Relative Relationships

Served on American College of Cardiology (ACC) appropriateness rating panel for echocardiography

Currently on writing committee for ACC ICD/CRT appropriateness criteria

Past research grant from Medtronic


  • Appropriateness as a measure of quality

  • Examples of criteria

    • Echo, Stress Testing

  • Is US care appropriate?

    • Echo, ICD, PCI

  • Research in Progress: Two Interventions to improve appropriateness

Why appropriateness
Why Appropriateness?

Progressive Increase in

Office Cardiac Imaging



OP Hospital

Levin Health Affairs, 2010

Need for appropriateness 15 fold variation in coronary stenting angioplasty
Need for Appropriateness: 15-fold Variation in Coronary Stenting/Angioplasty

Dartmouth Atlas 2005

Hospital compare ct scans
Hospital Compare: CT Scans

Procedure utilization review
Procedure Utilization Review

  • Prior approaches

    • Review of individual cases

    • Black box rules

    • Third party gatekeepers

Acc survey of rbm prior authorization practice
ACC Survey of RBM/Prior Authorization Practice

Goals of appropriateness measures
Goals of Appropriateness Measures

  • Create partnerships for rational/fair CV use of procedures and related reimbursement (clinicians, health plans, policymakers and payers)

  • Educate clinicians on their practice habits

  • Stewardship of health care resources

  • Improve cost effectiveness of CV procedures (imaging, stenting, devices)

Understanding quality in procedure utilization
Understanding Quality in Procedure Utilization

  • Underuse

    • Failure to apply treatment in those likely to benefit

  • Overuse

    • Applying treatment to patients in whom risks > benefits


Appropriate Use Criteria

Rand ucla rating method
Rand/UCLA Rating Method

Adapted from Fitch K, et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual, 2001, 4

Rating of indications
Rating of Indications

  • 7-9: Appropriate test for specific indication

    • Test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach for the indication

  • 4-6: Uncertain or unclear if appropriate for specific indication

    • Test may be generally acceptable and may be a reasonable approach for the indication

  • 1-3: Inappropriate test for specific indication

    • Test is not generally acceptable and is not a reasonable approach for the indication

Uncertain and inappropriate
Uncertain and Inappropriate

  • Uncertain does NOT indicate that the procedure should NOT be performed for that indication, but rather more information/research is need to reach a firm conclusion

  • Uncertain does NOT indicate that the procedure should not be reimbursed for that indication

  • Inappropriate rate goal should never be 0%; emphasize reduction in patterns of inappropriate

Auc and coverage
AUC and Coverage

AUC are not coverage criteria but clinical benchmarking tools

Coverage can be broader and AUC target clinical nuances

Registry implementation: potential source of information to track usage of procedures after coverage approval

Auc development


Nuclear Imaging (SPECT)

October 2005

Cardiac CT/CMR

September 2006

Echocardiography (TTE, TEE)

July 2007

Echocardiography (Stress)

December 2007

Coronary Revascularization

December, 2008

Revised Nuclear Imaging

May 2009

Revised CT

October 2010

Revised Echocardiography

November 2010

Revised Coronary Revascularization

January 2012

In Progress

Multi-modality criteria

Heart failure

Acute chest pain

Ischemic Heart Disease

Vascular Disease Ultrasound

Diagnostic Catheterization


AUC Development


  • Revascularization

    • PCI

  • Echo

  • ICD

Revascularization criteria
Revascularization Criteria

  • ~200 Clinical scenarios rated by 17 experts

  • Based upon the potential benefit to be gained from PCI. Patients’ stratified by…

    • Severity of coronary anatomy

    • Magnitude of ischemia

    • Intensity of medical therapy

    • Severity of symptoms


Patel, JACC 2009

Acs algorithm
ACS Algorithm

Patel, JACC 2009

Variation in inappropriate use of pci
Variation in Inappropriate Use of PCI quality…

Chan JAMA 2011

Volume and inappropriate pci
Volume and Inappropriate PCI quality…


Rate of Inappropriate PCI (%)

PCI Procedure Volume

Chan JAMA 2011

Cath pci reports
CATH-PCI Reports quality…

And uncover opportunities for cost savings or better resource deployment
… and uncover opportunities for cost savings or better resource deployment

3.2% of PCI procedures considered inappropriate.

If dropped to


44,000,000 USD

Source: Chan et al, internal ACC analysis

Validation appropriate pci
Validation: resource deploymentAppropriate PCI

Chan, JACC 2011

Validation uncertain appropriateness pci
Validation: resource deploymentUncertainAppropriateness PCI

Chan, JACC 2011

Validation inappropriate pci
Validation: resource deploymentInappropriate PCI

Chan, JACC 2011

Icd use in primary prevention
ICD Use in Primary Prevention resource deployment

All-Khatib, JAMA 2011

Rates of non evidence based icd implantation
Rates of Non-Evidence Based ICD Implantation resource deployment

All-Khatib, JAMA 2011

Individual reasons for not meeting guidelines
Individual Reasons for Not Meeting Guidelines resource deployment

All-Khatib, JAMA 2011

Inappropriate stress echo
Inappropriate Stress Echo resource deployment

Douglas, JACC 2008

Appropriateness of stress echo in valve disease
Appropriateness of Stress Echo in Valve Disease resource deployment

Douglas, JACC 2008

Appropriateness of stress imaging
Appropriateness of Stress Imaging resource deployment

Gibbons JACC 2008

Inappropriate stress indications
Inappropriate Stress Indications resource deployment

Gibbons,s JACC 2008

ACCF and United Healthcare Pilot resource deployment

Appropriateness Classification (n=5,928)

Rates same between patients with RBM and without RBM review

Inappropriate echo indications
Inappropriate Echo Indications resource deployment

Rahimi AJC 2011

Inappropriate echocardiograms
Inappropriate Echocardiograms resource deployment

Rahimi AJC 2011

Hospital and provider type university of miami echo
Hospital and Provider Type: resource deploymentUniversity of Miami Echo


Willens JASE 2009

Inappropriate echocardiograms1
Inappropriate Echocardiograms resource deployment

Ward, JACC Imaging 2008

Inappropriate echo results
Inappropriate Echo Results resource deployment

Major includes wall motion abnormality, moderate valve disease,

pulmonary HTN, LVEF < 40%, RV dysfunction

Ward, JACC Imaging 2008

Repeat echocardiograms less appropriate by criteria
Repeat Echocardiograms: resource deploymentLess Appropriate by Criteria

Ghatak, Echocardiography 2011

Research purpose
Research Purpose resource deployment

To determine if a statement in the echocardiography report can lead to more appropriate studies.

Intervention resource deployment

  • statement in the echo report:

    • Positive

      • Recommended in 2 weeks

      • Recommended in 6 months

      • Recommended in 1 year

    • Negative

      • Not recommended for at least 1 year

      • Not recommended for at least 3 years

Incorporated into work flow
Incorporated Into Work Flow resource deployment

Reader determines if follow-up statement should be added

Reporting system randomly includes or does not include the statement

Outcome resource deployment

  • Positive statement (follow up recommended by time period X months):

    • Echo within X months -25% to + 50%

      • 9 months to 18 months OK for 1 year f/u

  • Negative statement (follow up not recommend for at least X months

    • Follow-up Echo not done in X months

Exclusion from analysis if n small
Exclusion From Analysis resource deployment(if N small)

  • Echo performed for new indication

  • Patient leaves the Palo Alto VA health care system before follow-up period

    • Death

    • Changed health systems

Analysis resource deployment

Primary: first echocardiogram per patient

Secondary: multiple echocardiograms per patient

Progress resource deployment

  • Study Initiated 7/2012

  • 1032 reports randomized 50:50

    • 989 unique patients

  • 849 negative recommendations

  • 183 positive recommendations

Follow up studies
Follow Up Studies resource deployment

Follow up studies after a negative recommendation
Follow-Up Studies after a Negative Recommendation resource deployment

  • 41 echo requests examined

    • 9 clearly inappropriate

  • Plan to enroll until we have 100 inappropriate follow-up echocardiograms

Left ventriculography

Left Ventriculography resource deployment

Use of resource deploymentLeft Ventriculography

Test is not “ordered”.

Decision made by the invasive cardiologist at the time of coronary angiography.

Adds contrast (small risk of worsening renal function)

Adds radiation (minimal risk of cancer)

Appropriateness resource deploymentLeft Ventriculography

Use during coronary angiography

>80% among Aetna patients despite recent echocardiogram

Does the rate vary across facilities?

Witteles, AHJ 2012

Variation in lvgram use
Variation in LVgram Use resource deployment

Lv gram appropriateness intervention
LV Gram Appropriateness Intervention resource deployment

1) Have VA providers of left ventriculography (invasive cardiologists) rate appropriateness of different scenarios.

Lv gram appropriateness intervention1
LV Gram Appropriateness Intervention resource deployment

2) Determine appropriateness using the VA’s national catheterization laboratory reporting system

Lv gram appropriateness intervention2
LV Gram Appropriateness Intervention resource deployment

3) Feedback performance to each VA laboratory.


Progress? resource deployment

Appropriateness of echo
Appropriateness of Echo resource deployment

Rahimi AJC 2011

Nuclear medicine use
Nuclear Medicine Use resource deployment

Levin Health Affairs, 2010