Risk stratification in acute heart failure: rationale and design of the STRATIFY and DECIDE studies.

BACKGROUND: A critical challenge for physicians facing patients presenting with signs and symptoms of acute heart failure (AHF) is how and where to best manage them. Currently, most patients evaluated for AHF are admitted to the hospital, yet not all warrant inpatient care. Up to 50% of admissions could be potentially avoided and many admitted patients could be discharged after a short period of observation and treatment. Methods for identifying patients that can be sent home early are lacking. Improving the physician's ability to identify and safely manage low-risk patients is essential to avoiding unnecessary use of hospital beds. METHODS: Two studies (STRATIFY and DECIDE) have been funded by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute with the goal of developing prediction rules to facilitate early decision making in AHF. Using prospectively gathered evaluation and treatment data from the acute setting (STRATIFY) and early inpatient stay (DECIDE), rules will be generated to predict risk for death and serious complications. Subsequent studies will be designed to test the external validity, utility, generalizability and cost-effectiveness of these prediction rules in different acute care environments representing racially and socioeconomically diverse patient populations. RESULTS: A major innovation is prediction of 5-day as well as 30-day outcomes, overcoming the limitation that 30-day outcomes are highly dependent on unpredictable, post-visit patient and provider behavior. A novel aspect of the proposed project is the use of a comprehensive cardiology review to correctly assign post-treatment outcomes to the acute presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Finally, a rigorous analysis plan has been developed to construct the prediction rules that will maximally extract both the statistical and clinical properties of every data element. Upon completion of this study we will subsequently externally test the prediction rules in a heterogeneous patient cohort.

Acute coronary syndrome pathways: alignment with a bundled care reimbursement model.

Changes in public policy, population demographics, and market dynamics are spurring innovative approaches to value-based care. Annually, hospitalizations for Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) account for a substantial proportion of healthcare expenditures in the United States. Vanderbilt University Medical Center has developed a framework to deliver comprehensive care incorporating inpatient and outpatient care teams for patients with ACS under an episode-based, bundled reimbursement model for a term of 6 months. As such, a value-oriented pathway was created with the goals of (1) optimizing patient outcomes following ACS; (2) minimizing complications from the treatment of ACS; and (3) reducing costs of healthcare related to the treatment of ACS. In a tertiary care academic medical system receiving patients from multiple facilities involving multiple providers, standardization of care by using practice guidelines and evidence-based data coupled with a robust computerized provider order entry system provides a unique opportunity to produce a "best practice" algorithm for treating patients presenting with ACS. Presented in this study are in-hospital and postdischarge care pathways for treating a diverse group of patients presenting with ACS to our institution.

Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity.

We tested the hypothesis that experienced interventional cardiologists can identify patients with fractional flow reserve (FFR) <0.75 either by visual assessment of the angiogram or by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). Estimation of the significance of moderate lesions is difficult. FFR can determine the physiologic significance of a stenosis. Data comparing visual assessment and QCA of moderate lesions with FFR are limited. FFR was measured in 83 moderate lesions defined as having a 40% to 70% stenosis by visual inspection. An FFR <0.75 was considered "significant." Lesions were visually assessed by 3 experienced interventional cardiologists and their significance estimated. QCA was performed. Both analyses were compared with FFR. FFR averaged 0.82 +/- 0.11 and was <0.75 in 15 of 83 lesions (18%). The reviewers' classification was concordant with the FFR in about half the lesions. Concordance between reviewers was poor (Spearman's rho = 0.36). Visual assessment resulted in good sensitivity (80%) and negative predictive value (91%), but poor specificity (47%) and positive predictive value (25%) compared with FFR. By QCA, no patient with stenosis <60% or minimal luminal diameter >1.4 mm had FFR <0.75. QCA did not discriminate the significance of lesions outside of these parameters. Thus, neither visual assessment of an angiogram by experienced interventional cardiologists nor QCA can accurately predict the significance of most moderate narrowings.