Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are common, potentially harmful, and costly. Nearly half of the patients in the United States will receive at least 1 low-value test or procedure annually, creating risk of avoidable complications from subsequent cascades of care and excess costs to patients and society. Reducing low-value care is of particular importance to cardiovascular health given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States. This scientific statement describes the current scope and impact of low-value cardiovascular care; reviews existing literature on patient-, clinician-, health system-, payer-, and policy-level interventions to reduce low-value care; proposes solutions to achieve meaningful and equitable reductions in low-value care; and suggests areas for future research priorities.

The Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium: Inception of a Multicenter Collaborative to Improve Cardiovascular Care.

Despite decades of improvement in the quality and outcomes of cardiovascular care, significant gaps remain. Existing quality improvement strategies are often limited in scope to specific clinical conditions and episodic care. Health services and outcomes research is essential to inform gaps in care but rarely results in the development and implementation of care delivery solutions. Although individual health systems are engaged in projects to improve the quality of care delivery, these efforts often lack a robust study design or implementation evaluation that can inform generalizability and further dissemination. Aligning the work of health care systems and health services and outcomes researchers could serve as a strategy to overcome persisting gaps in cardiovascular quality and outcomes. We describe the inception of the Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium that seeks to rapidly improve cardiovascular care by (1) developing, implementing, and evaluating multicenter quality improvement projects using innovative care designs; (2) serving as a resource for quality improvement and care innovation partners; and (3) establishing a presence within existing quality improvement and care innovation structures. Success of the collaborative will be defined by projects that result in changes to care delivery with demonstrable impacts on the quality and outcomes of care across multiple health systems. Furthermore, insights gained from implementation of these projects across sites in Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium will inform and promote broad dissemination for greater impact.

Use of routinely captured echocardiographic data in the diagnosis of severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the implications of applying guideline-recommended definitions of aortic stenosis to echocardiographic data captured in routine clinical care. METHODS: Retrospective observational study of 213 174 patients who underwent transthoracic echocardiographic imaging within Allina Health between January 2013 and October 2017. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of echocardiographic measures for severe aortic stenosis were determined relative to the documented interpretation of severe aortic stenosis. RESULTS: Among 77 067 patients with complete assessment of the aortic valve, 1219 (1.6%) patients were categorised as having severe aortic stenosis by the echocardiographic reader. Relative to the documented interpretation, aortic valve area (AVA) as a measure of severe aortic stenosis had the high sensitivity (94.1%) but a low positive predictive value (37.5%). Aortic valve peak velocity and mean gradient were specific (>99%), but less sensitive (<70%). A measure incorporating peak velocity, mean gradient and dimensionless index (either by velocity time integral or peak velocity ratio) achieved a balance of sensitivity (92%) and specificity (99%) with little detriment in accuracy relative to peak velocity and mean gradient alone (98.9% vs 99.3%). Using all available data, the proportion of patients whose echocardiogram could be assessed for aortic stenosis was 79.8% as compared with 52.7% by documented interpretation alone. CONCLUSION: A measure that used dimensionless index in place of AVA addressed discrepancies between quantitative echocardiographic data and the documented interpretation of severe aortic stenosis. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the limitations of clinical data as it relates to quality improvement efforts and pragmatic research design.

Value-Based ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Care Using Risk-Guided Triage and Early Discharge.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest that low-risk ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention can be considered for early discharge. We describe the implementation of an STEMI risk score to decrease cost while maintaining optimal patient outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We determined the impact of risk-guided STEMI care on healthcare value through the retrospective application of the Zwolle Risk Score to 967 patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 2009 and 2011. Of these patients, 540 (56%) were categorized as low risk, indicating they may be safely triaged directly to a telemetry unit rather than the intensive care unit and targeted for early discharge. We subsequently developed and implemented a modified Zwolle Risk Calculator into the electronic medical record to support application of the fast-track protocol for low-risk STEMI patients. Among 549 prospective patients with STEMI, 62% were low risk, and the fast-track protocol was followed in 75% of cases. Prospective results confirmed lower rates of complications (low risk 8.3% versus high risk 38.7%; P<0.001) and in-hospital mortality (low risk 0.4% versus High risk 12.5%; P<0.001) in the low-risk cohort. Low-risk patients had a shorter median length of stay (median and [25th, 75th percentiles]: low risk 2 [2, 3] versus high risk: 3 [2, 6]; P<0.001) and lower overall costs (low risk $6720 [$5280-$9030] versus high risk $11 783 [$7953-$25 359]; P<0.001). Low-risk patients treated on-protocol had shorter median length of stay (on-protocol 2 [1, 2] versus off-protocol 2 [2, 3]; P<0.001) and hospital costs (on-protocol $6090 [$4730, $7356] versus off-protocol $11 783 [$7953, $25 359]; P<0.001) than those treated off-protocol. On-protocol low-risk patients in the prospective cohort also had lower costs and shorter length of stay than low-risk patients in the retrospective cohort (P<0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, risk-guided triage and discharge after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI improved healthcare value by reducing costs of care without compromising quality of care or patient outcomes.