Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography in the Era of Value-Based Care: Mission Accomplished or Future Mandates?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to highlight the past impact and current role of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for echocardiography in value-based healthcare, and to address future implications in light of the recent mandate from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to incorporate AUC for other imaging modalities. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies have proven that the AUC effectively stratify the clinical practice of echocardiography as they predict important echo abnormalities and impact optimal patient care. Recent investigations have tested new technologies and demonstrated the feasibility and scalability of the application of the AUC for echocardiography at the point of care. The AUC for echocardiography has accomplished their core mission, as utilization has moderated over the last decade and mandatory implementation at the point of care for echocardiography remains rare. While a new mandate signals another wave of focus on appropriate utilization, echocardiography stands ready.

Impact of Different Electronic Cohort Definitions to Identify Patients With Atrial Fibrillation From the Electronic Medical Record.

Background Electronic medical records (EMRs) allow identification of disease-specific patient populations, but varying electronic cohort definitions could result in different populations. We compared the characteristics of an electronic medical record-derived atrial fibrillation (AF) patient population using 5 different electronic cohort definitions. Methods and Results Adult patients with at least 1 AF billing code from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, were included. Based on different electronic cohort definitions, we trained 5 different logistic regression models using a labeled training data set (n=786). Each model yielded a predicted probability; patients were classified as having AF if the probability was higher than a specified cut point. Test characteristics were calculated for each model. These models were then applied to the full cohort and resulting characteristics were compared. In the training set, the comprehensive model (including demographics, billing codes, and natural language processing results) performed best, with an area under the curve of 0.89, sensitivity of 0.90, and specificity of 0.87. Among a candidate population (n=22 000), the proportion of patients identified as having AF varied from 61% in the model using diagnosis or procedure International Classification of Diseases (ICD) billing codes to 83% in the model using natural language processing of clinical notes. Among identified AF patients, the proportion of patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 varied from 69% to 85%; oral anticoagulant treatment rates varied from 50% to 66% depending on the model. Conclusions Different electronic cohort definitions result in substantially different AF study samples. This difference threatens the quality and reproducibility of electronic medical record-based research and quality initiatives.

Safety and Efficacy of Periprocedural Heparin Plus a Short-Term Infusion of Tirofiban Versus Bivalirudin Monotherapy in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Intermountain Heart Institute STAIR Observational Registry).

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, used as a standard intravenous bolus followed by a prolonged infusion for 12 to 18 hours, reduces ischemic complications during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) but often at a cost of increased bleeding. Today, when dual oral antiplatelet therapy is routine, heparin use plus short-term (bolus alone or with a <6 hours infusion) glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, or bivalirudin monotherapy, have been proposed as potentially superior alternatives. This observational study evaluated the safety and efficacy of heparin plus short-term tirofiban versus bivalirudin monotherapy during PCI. Patients with successful PCI and no cardiogenic shock who were anticoagulated with either of the above regimens were followed for 30-day major bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and urgent target vessel revascularization) at 30 days, 1 year, and long term. A total of 727 patients receiving tirofiban (age = 63 ± 13 years, males = 76%, ACS presentation = 75%, radial access = 51%) and 459 patients receiving bivalirudin, (age = 65 ± 13 years, males = 71%, ACS presentation = 78%, radial access = 18%) were included. Thirty-day major bleeding was 0.7% and 4.1% for tirofiban and bivalirudin, respectively (adjusted odds ratio = 0.17 [0.06, 0.46], p = 0.001). During 30-day, 1-year, and long-term (1.7 ± 0.9 years) follow-up, major adverse cardiovascular events risk did not differ significantly between tirofiban and bivalirudin. However, long-term death was significantly lower in those receiving tirofiban (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.58 [0.34, 1.00], p = 0.05). In conclusion, in this observational study, PCI patients receiving heparin plus short-term tirofiban experienced significantly lower 30-day major bleeding, and improved long-term survival, than those receiving bivalirudin monotherapy.