Comanagement of Risk Factors in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Insights From the APPEAR Study.

Background Effective management of cardiovascular risk factors is the foundation of secondary prevention in coronary artery disease. The physician under whose sphere these are managed can vary, primary care physicians, cardiologists, or both, and the optimal management strategy for risk factor control is unknown. Methods and Results The APPEAR (Angina Prevalence and Provider Evaluation of Angina Relief) study was a cross-sectional cohort study of outpatients with coronary artery disease (stable angina, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or myocardial infarction) from 25 US cardiology practices. After each patient visit, providers noted who managed each risk factor. Blood pressure and lipid levels were recorded from charts. We compared adherence to guideline-directed risk factor control between management strategies (primary care physician alone, cardiologist alone, or comanaged). Among 1259 outpatients with coronary artery disease (mean [SD] age, 71 [11.1] years; 69% men), blood pressure and lipid management strategy varied. Mean blood pressure was 127.9/72.3 mm Hg, with 74% of patients at <140/90 mm Hg and 46% at <130/80 mm Hg. Mean low-density lipoprotein was 83.5 mg/dL, with 75% of patients at <100 mg/dL and 91% on appropriate statin therapy. Patients managed by cardiologists alone tended to have higher rates of risk factor control for both blood pressure and lipids, even after adjusting for covariates. Conclusions Although comanagement has shown benefit in some clinical situations, we found that risk factor control in patients with coronary artery disease tended to be poorer when care was shared between cardiologists and primary care physicians. Further research is needed to better define which conditions are best comanaged and how to more effectively comanage patients in the fractured US healthcare system.

Low Diastolic Blood Pressure Is Associated With Angina in Patients With Chronic Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), low diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction, but its association with angina is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the association of low DBP and angina in patients with CAD. METHODS: The study assessed the frequency of angina (measured by using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-Angina Frequency score) according to DBP in patients with known CAD from 25 U.S. cardiology clinics. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to test the association between DBP and angina, with a spline term for DBP to assess nonlinearity. RESULTS: Among 1,259 outpatients with CAD, 411 (33%) reported angina in the prior month, with higher rates in the lowest DBP quartile (40 to 64 mm Hg: 37%). In the unadjusted model, DBP was associated with angina with a J-shaped relationship (p = 0.017, p for nonlinearity = 0.027), with a progressive increase in odds of angina as DBP decreased below ∼70 to 80 mm Hg. This association remained significant after sequential adjustment for demographic characteristics (p = 0.002), comorbidities (p = 0.002), heart rate (p = 0.002), systolic blood pressure (p = 0.046), and antihypertensive antianginal medications (p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic CAD, there seemed to be an association between lower DBP and increased odds of angina. If validated, these findings suggest that clinicians should consider less aggressive blood pressure control in patients with CAD and angina.

Signs, symptoms, and treatment patterns across serial ambulatory cardiology visits in patients with heart failure: insights from the NCDR PINNACLE® registry.

BACKGROUND: Due to a relative lack of outpatient heart failure (HF) clinical registries, we aimed to describe symptoms, signs, and medication treatment among ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF) over time. METHODS: Using health records from 234 PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) U.S. cardiology practices (2008-2014), serial visits for patients with HF were characterized. Symptoms, signs, and HF medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEI], angiotensin receptor blockers [ARB], beta blockers [BB], and diuretics) were compared between visits. RESULTS: Among 763,331 patients with HF, 550,581 had ≥2 clinic visits < 1 year apart, with 2,998,444 visit pairs. In the 12 months following an index visit, patients had a mean of 2.5 ± 2.3 additional visits. Recorded index visit symptoms ranged from dyspnea (53.6%) to orthopnea (23.1%); signs ranged from peripheral edema (52.2%) to hepatomegaly (0.6%). Of those with ejection fraction < 40%, ACEI was prescribed in 58.6%, ARB in 18.5%, BB in 85.2%, and diuretics in 70.0%. Between-visit recorded changes were infrequent: dyspnea appeared in 3.8%, resolved in 2.7%; NYHA class increased in 2.9%, decreased in 2.9%; number of signs increased in 6.0%, decreased in 5.1%; ACEI/ARB or BB added in 6.4%, removed in 6.2%; diuretic added in 3.7%, removed in 3.8%. Changes in recorded symptoms were rarely associated with initiation or discontinuation in HF medication classes. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory HF care in U.S. cardiology practices seldom recorded changes in symptoms, signs, and medication class. Although templated medical records and absence of medication dosing likely underestimated the degree to which clinical changes occur over serial visits for HF, these PINNACLE data suggest opportunities for greater symptom-based and therapy-focused visits.

The prevalence and management of angina among patients with chronic coronary artery disease across US outpatient cardiology practices: insights from the Angina Prevalence and Provider Evaluation of Angina Relief (APPEAR) study.

Although eliminating angina is a primary goal in treating patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD), few contemporary data quantify prevalence and severity of angina across US cardiology practices. The authors hypothesized that angina among outpatients with CAD managed by US cardiologists is low and its prevalence varies by site. Among 25 US outpatient cardiology clinics enrolled in the American College of Cardiology Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry, we prospectively recruited a consecutive sample of patients with chronic CAD over a 1- to 2-week period at each site between April 2013 and July 2015, irrespective of the reason for their appointment. Eligible patients had documented history of CAD (prior acute coronary syndrome, prior coronary revascularization procedure, or diagnosis of stable angina) and ≥1 prior office visit at the practice site. Angina was assessed directly from patients using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency score. Among 1257 patients from 25 sites, 7.6% (n = 96) reported daily/weekly, 25.1% (n = 315) monthly, and 67.3% (n = 846) no angina. The proportion of patients with daily/weekly angina at each site ranged from 2.0% to 24.0%, but just over half (56.3%) were on ≥2 antianginal medications, with wide variability across sites (0%-100%). One-third of outpatients with chronic CAD managed by cardiologists report having angina in the prior month, and 7.6% have frequent symptoms. Among those with frequent angina, just over half were on ≥2 antianginal medications, with wide variability across sites. These findings suggest an opportunity to improve symptom control.

Predictors of Physician Under-Recognition of Angina in Outpatients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Under-recognition of angina by physicians may result in undertreatment with revascularization or medications that could improve patients' quality of life. We sought to describe characteristics associated with under-recognition of patients' angina. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with coronary disease from 25 US cardiology outpatient practices completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire before their clinic visit, quantifying their frequency of angina during the previous month. Immediately after the clinic visit, physicians independently quantified their patients' angina. Angina frequency was categorized as none, monthly, and daily/weekly. Among 1257 patients, 411 reported angina in the previous month, of whom 173 (42%) were under-recognized by their physician, defined as the physician reporting a lower frequency category of angina than the patient. In a hierarchical logistic model, heart failure (odds ratio, 3.06, 95% confidence interval, 1.89-4.95) and less-frequent angina (odds ratio for monthly angina [versus daily/weekly], 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.56) were associated with greater odds of under-recognition. No other patient or physician factors were associated with under-recognition. Significant variability across physicians (median odds ratio, 2.06) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Under-recognition of angina is common in routine clinical practice. Although patients with less-frequent angina and those with heart failure more often had their angina under-recognized, most variation was unrelated to patient and physician characteristics. The large variation across physicians suggests that some physicians are more accurate in assessing angina frequency than others. Standardized prospective use of a validated clinical tool, such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, should be tested as a means to improve recognition of angina and, potentially, improve appropriate treatment of angina.

Patient and physician discordance in reporting symptoms of angina among stable coronary artery disease patients: Insights from the Angina Prevalence and Provider Evaluation of Angina Relief (APPEAR) study.

BACKGROUND: A principal goal of treating patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is to minimize angina and optimize quality of life. For this, physicians must accurately assess presence and frequency of patients' angina. The accuracy with which cardiologists estimate their patients' angina in contemporary, busy outpatient clinics across the United States (US) is unknown. METHODS: We enrolled patients with CAD across 25 US cardiology outpatient practices. Patients completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire before their visit, which assessed their angina and quality of life over the prior 4 weeks. The Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency domain categorized patients' angina as none, daily/weekly, or monthly. After the visit, cardiologists estimated the frequency of their patients' angina using the same categories. Kappa statistic helped to assess agreement between patient-reported and cardiologist-estimated angina. RESULTS: Among 1,257 outpatients with CAD, 67% reported no angina, 25% reported monthly angina, and 8% reported daily/weekly angina. When patients reported no angina, cardiologists accurately estimated this 93% of the time, but when patients reported monthly or daily/weekly angina symptoms, cardiologists agreed 17% and 69% of the time, respectively. Among patients with daily/weekly angina, 26% were noted as having no angina by their physicians. Agreement between patients' and cardiologists' reports (assessed by the kappa statistic) was 0.48 (95% CI 0.44-0.53), indicating moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with stable CAD, there is substantial discordance between patient-reported and cardiologist-estimated burden of angina. Inclusion of patient-reported health status measures in routine clinical care may support better recognition of patients' symptoms by physicians.

Effect of angina under-recognition on treatment in outpatients with stable ischaemic heart disease.

AIMS: Almost a third of outpatients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) report having angina in the prior month, which is frequently under-recognized by their cardiologists. Whether under-recognition is associated with less treatment escalation to control angina, and potential underuse of treatment, is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with CAD from 25 US cardiology outpatient practices completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) prior to their clinic visit, and angina was categorized as daily, weekly, monthly and no angina. Cardiologists (n=155) independently quantified patients' angina, blinded to patients' SAQ scores. Under-recognition was defined as the physician reporting a lower category of angina frequency than the patient. Among 1257 patients with CAD, 411 reported angina in the past month, of whom 178 (43.3%) patients were under-recognized. Treatment escalation-defined as intensification (up-titration or addition) of antianginal medications, referral for diagnostic testing or revascularization, or hospital admission-occurred in 106 (25.8%) patients with angina. Patients with under-recognized angina were less likely to get treatment escalation than patients whose angina was appropriately recognized (8.4% vs 39.1%, P<0.001). In a hierarchical multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the burden of angina, under-recognition remained strongly associated with a lack of treatment escalation (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.21, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Under-recognition of angina in cardiology outpatient practices is associated with less aggressive treatment escalation and may lead to poorer angina control. Standardizing clinical recognition of angina using validated tools could reduce under-recognition of angina, facilitate treatment, and potentially improve outcomes.

Cardiac performance measure compliance in outpatients: the American College of Cardiology and National Cardiovascular Data Registry's PINNACLE (Practice Innovation And Clinical Excellence) program.

OBJECTIVES: We examined compliance with performance measures for 14,464 patients enrolled from July 2008 through June 2009 into the American College of Cardiology's PINNACLE (Practice Innovation And Clinical Excellence) program to provide initial insights into the quality of outpatient cardiac care. BACKGROUND: Little is known about the quality of care of outpatients with coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, and atrial fibrillation, and whether sex and racial disparities exist in the treatment of outpatients. METHODS: The PINNACLE program is the first, national, prospective office-based quality improvement program of cardiac patients designed, in part, to capture, report, and improve outpatient performance measure compliance. We examined the proportion of patients whose care was compliant with established American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American Medical Association-Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (ACC/AHA/PCPI) performance measures for CAD, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: There were 14,464 unique patients enrolled from 27 U.S. practices, accounting for 18,021 clinical visits. Of these, 8,132 (56.4%) had CAD, 5,012 (34.7%) had heart failure, and 2,786 (19.3%) had nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Data from the PINNACLE program were feasibly collected for 24 of 25 ACC/AHA/PCPI performance measures. Compliance with performance measures ranged from being very low (e.g., 13.3% of CAD patients screened for diabetes mellitus) to very high (e.g., 96.7% of heart failure patients with blood pressure assessments), with moderate (70% to 90%) compliance observed for most performance measures. For 3 performance measures, there were small differences in compliance rates by race or sex. CONCLUSIONS: For more than 14,000 patients enrolled from 27 practices in the outpatient PINNACLE program, we found that compliance with performance measures was variable, even after accounting for exclusion criteria, suggesting an important opportunity to improve the quality of outpatient care.