2015 ACC Health Policy Statement on Cardiovascular Team-Based Care and the Role of Advanced Practice Providers.

The mission of the American College of Cardiology is "to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health." Cardiovascular team-based care is a paradigm for practice that can transform care, improve heart health, and help meet the demands of the future. One strategic goal of the College is to help members successfully transition their clinical practices to the future, with all its complexity, challenges, and opportunities. The ACC's strategic plan is aligned with the triple aim of improved care, improved population health, and lower costs per capita. The traditional understanding of quality, access, and cost is that you cannot improve one component without diminishing the others. With cardiovascular team-based care, it is possible to achieve the triple aim of improving quality, access, and cost simultaneously to also improve cardiovascular health. Striving to serve the best interests of patients is the true north of our guiding principles. Cardiovascular team-based care is a model that can improve care coordination and communication and allow each team member to focus more on the quality of care. In addition, the cardiovascular team-based care model increases access to cardiovascular care and allows expansion of services to populations and geographic areas that are currently underserved. This document will increase awareness of the important components of cardiovascular team-based care and create an opportunity for more discussion about the most creative and effective means of implementing it. We hope that this document will stimulate further discussions and activities within the ACC and beyond about team-based care. We have identified areas that need improvement, specifically in APP education and state regulation. The document encourages the exploration of collaborative care models that should enable team members to optimize their education, training, experience, and talent. Improved team leadership, coordination, collaboration, engagement, and efficiency will enable the delivery of higher-value care to the betterment of our patients and society.

Coronary CT angiography versus myocardial perfusion imaging for near-term quality of life, cost and radiation exposure: a prospective multicenter randomized pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes and resource utilization after coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) versus myocardial perfusion single-photon emission CT (MPS) in patients with stable angina and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) has not been examined. OBJECTIVE: We determined the near-term clinical effect and resource utilization after cardiac CTA compared with MPS. METHODS: We randomly assigned 180 patients (age, 57.3 ± 9.8 years; 50.6% men) presenting with stable chest pain and suspected CAD at 2 sites to initial diagnostic evaluation by coronary CTA (n = 91) or MPS (n = 89). The primary outcome was near-term angina-specific health status; the secondary outcomes were incident medical and invasive treatments for CAD, CAD health care costs, and estimated radiation dose. RESULTS: No patients experienced myocardial infarction or death with 98.3% follow-up at 55 ± 34 days. Both arms experienced comparable improvements in angina-specific health status. Patients who received coronary CTA had increased incident aspirin (22% vs 8%; P = 0.04) and statin (7% vs -3.5%; P = 0.03) use, similar rates of CAD-related hospitalization, invasive coronary angiography, noninvasive cardiac imaging tests, and increased revascularization (8% vs 1%; P = 0.03). Coronary CTA had significantly lower total costs ($781.08 [interquartile range (IQR), $367.80-$4349.48] vs $1214.58 [IQR, $978.02-$1569.40]; P < 0.001) with no difference in induced costs. Coronary CTA had a significantly lower total estimated effective radiation dose (7.4 mSv [IQR, 5.0-14.0 mSv] vs 13.3 mSv [IQR, 13.1-38.0 mSv]; P < 0.0001) with no difference in induced radiation. CONCLUSION: In a pilot randomized controlled trial, patients with stable CAD undergoing coronary CTA and MPS experience comparable improvements in near-term angina-related quality of life. Compared with MPS, coronary CTA evaluation is associated with more aggressive medical therapy, increased coronary revascularization, lower total costs, and lower effective radiation dose.