Contemporary review of severe aortic stenosis.

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common form of valvular heart disease in the developed world, with a rising prevalence due to an ageing Australian population. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) offers a less invasive option for the treatment of severe AS, with evidence supporting TAVI compared with medical therapy in inoperable patients and superior with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Equal outcomes have been observed in all-comer intermediate-risk populations. The Heart Team utilises a shared decision-making approach between physicians and surgeons in risk-stratifying patients and reduces the intrinsic bias that may occur if decisions are made in isolation. Geriatric assessment is useful for identifying preoperative frailty, a major risk factor for death post-aortic valve intervention. In severe AS, a decision can be made collaboratively to pursue TAVI, SAVR, a Ross Procedure or conservative management. The learning curve associated with TAVI has improved markedly, with overall complication rates decreasing around the world. Contemporary changes in practice, such as conscious sedation without general anaesthesia, expedited recovery and early discharge, will likely improve cost-effectiveness. In 2018, TAVI is a well-established procedure in Australia that has revolutionised the management of severe AS. In the future, with an expanding elderly population, the number of patients to benefit from transcatheter therapies for severe AS is hypothesised to increase 4-10-fold. Heart Team assessment is crucial in patients with severe AS to direct appropriate management.

Variation in coronary angiography rates in Australia: correlations with socio-demographic, health service and disease burden indices.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the provision of coronary angiography is associated with health care inefficiency and inequity. We explored geographic, socio-economic, health service and disease indicators associated with variation in angiography rates across Australia. METHODS: Australian census and National Health Survey data were used to determine socio-economic, health workforce and service indicators. Hospital separations and coronary deaths during 2011 were identified in the National Hospital Morbidity and Mortality databases. All 61 Medicare Locals responsible for primary care were included, and age- and sex-standardised rates of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) incidence, coronary angiography, revascularisation and mortality were tested for correlations, and adjusted by Bayesian regression. RESULTS: There were 3.7-fold and 2.3-fold differences between individual Medicare Locals in the lowest and highest ACS and coronary artery disease mortality rates respectively, whereas angiography rates varied 5.3-fold. ACS and death rates within Medicare Locals were correlated (partial correlation coefficient [CC], 0.52; P < 0.001). There was modest correlation between ACS and angiography rates (CC, 0.31; P = 0.018). The proportion of patients undergoing angiography who proceeded to revascularisation was inversely correlated with the total angiogram rate (CC, -0.71; P < 0.001). Socio-economic disadvantage and remoteness were correlated with disease burden, ACS incidence and mortality, but not with angiography rate. In the adjusted analysis, the strongest association with local angiography rates was with admissions to private hospitals (71 additional angiograms [95% CI, 47-93] for every 1000 admissions). CONCLUSION: Variation in rates of coronary angiography, not related to clinical need, occurs across Australia. A greater focus on clinical care standards and better distribution of health services will be required if these variations are to be attenuated.

Should fee-for-service be for all guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care? Observations from the Snapshot ACS study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to explore the association of health insurance status on the provision of guideline-advocated acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care in Australia. METHODS: Consecutive hospitalisations of suspected ACS from 14 to 27 May 2012 enrolled in the Snapshot study of Australian and New Zealand patients were evaluated. Descriptive and logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association of patient risk and insurance status with the receipt of care. RESULTS: In all, 3391 patients with suspected ACS from 247 hospitals (23 private) were enrolled in the present study. One-third of patients declared private insurance coverage; of these, 27.9% (304/1088) presented to private facilities. Compared with public patients, privately insured patients were more likely to undergo in-patient echocardiography and receive early angiography; furthermore, in those with a discharge diagnosis of ACS, there was a higher rate of revascularisation (P < 0.001). Each of these attracts potential fee-for-service. In contrast, proportionately fewer privately insured ACS patients were discharged on selected guideline therapies and were referred to a secondary prevention program (P = 0.056), neither of which directly attracts a fee. Typically, as GRACE (the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) risk score rose, so did the level of ACS care; however, propensity-adjusted analyses showed lower in-hospital adverse events among the insured group (odds ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.88; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Fee-for-service reimbursement may explain differences in the provision of selected guideline-advocated components of ACS care between privately insured and public patients.