Downstream procedures and outcomes after stress testing for chest pain without known coronary artery disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Millions of Americans with suspected coronary artery disease undergo noninvasive cardiac stress testing annually. Downstream procedures and subsequent outcomes among symptomatic patients without known coronary disease referred for stress testing are not well characterized in contemporary community practice. METHODS: We examined administrative insurance billing data from a national insurance provider from November 2004 through June 2007. After excluding patients with prior cardiac disease or chest pain evaluation, we identified 80,676 people age 40 to 64 years with outpatient cardiac stress testing within 30 days after an office visit for chest pain. We evaluated rates of invasive coronary angiography, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular events after stress testing. RESULTS: Within 60 days, only 8.8% of stress test patients underwent cardiac catheterization and only 2.7% underwent revascularization; within 1 year, only 0.5% died and had myocardial infarction or stroke. There were marked geographic variations in 1-year rates of catheterization (3.8%-14.8%) and revascularization (1.2%-3.0%) across 20 hospital referral regions. CONCLUSIONS: In this large national cohort of middle-aged patients without previously coded cardiac diagnosis who were referred for stress testing after outpatient chest pain evaluation, few proceeded to invasive angiography or revascularization, and subsequent cardiovascular events were infrequent.

A multicenter assessment of the use of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging with appropriateness criteria.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of evaluation for appropriate use of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in multiple clinical sites and to determine use patterns as well as identify areas of apparent inappropriate use. BACKGROUND: Although cardiac imaging is highly valued for decision-making, the growth and expense related to these procedures has raised questions regarding overuse. The publication of appropriate use criteria (AUC), including those for MPI, were designed to provide guidance in the rational use of testing. However, limited data regarding the implementation and evaluation of AUC are available. METHODS: Six diverse clinical sites enrolled consecutive patients undergoing MPI, collecting point-of-service data entered into an online form. An automated algorithm assigned a specific indication from the AUC that was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. Site-specific feedback was later provided to each practice on ordering patterns. RESULTS: Of the 6,351 patients enrolled, 93% were successfully assigned an appropriateness level. Inappropriate use of MPI was found in 14.4% of patients, with a range of 4% to 22% among practices. Women and younger patients were more likely to undergo inappropriate MPI. Asymptomatic, low-risk patients accounted for 44.5% of inappropriate testing. Elimination of the 5 most common inappropriate use indications would reduce overall imaging volume by 13.2%. Inappropriate use by physicians from within the practice performing imaging was not greater than physicians outside of the practice. Educational feedback might have resulted in reduced inappropriate test ordering in 1 site. CONCLUSIONS: The tracking of appropriate use is feasible in clinical practice, with an automated system that can readily identify practice patterns and targets for educational and quality improvement initiatives. This approach might provide an alternative to utilization management.