presenter disclosure information
DESCRIPTION
Multi-center Assessment of the Utilization of SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using the ACCF Appropriateness Criteria: The ACCF and United Healthcare SPECT Pilot Study. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Multi-center Assessment of the Utilization of SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using the ACCF Appropriateness Criteria:
The ACCF and United Healthcare SPECT Pilot Study
Robert C. Hendel, Manual Cerqueira, Kathleen Hewitt, Karen Caruth, Joseph Allen, Neil Jensen, Michael Wolk, Pamela S. Douglas, Ralph Brindis, American College of Cardiology Foundation, Washington, DC, UnitedHealthcare, Minneapolis, MN
Robert C. Hendel, MD, FACC
Midwest Heart SpecialistsWinfield, IL
Chairman, ACCF/UHC SPECT-MPI Pilot Study
Late Breaking Clinical TrialsAmerican College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions 2009
March 29, 2009
![Page 2: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Presenter Disclosure Information
Robert C. Hendel, MD
The following relationships exist related to this presentation:
Consulting PGx Health ModestAstellas Pharma ModestGE Healthcare Modest
Research support Astellas ModestGE Healthcare Modest
Organizational ACC (Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force)
![Page 3: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
BACKGROUND
• Growth and cost of CV imaging has placed renewed attention on proper/optimal test ordering
• True nature of utilization unknown–Overuse/underuse/appropriate use
• Development and publication of SPECT-MPI appropriate use criteria (AUC) in 2005–Subsequent AUC for echo, CT, CMR–SPECT MPI revision 2009
• Criteria widely available and increasingly being adopted, but evaluation in community practice settings required
![Page 4: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
GOALS OF STUDY
•Assess feasibility of tracking AUC–Point-of-service data collection–Computer derived indication assignment
•Determine patterns of use for SPECT MPI in clinical practice
•Evaluate the impact of referral source
•Identify selected areas (indications) for quality improvement
![Page 5: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
METHODS
• Sites selected by ACC from potential locations provided by UHC
• Data collection instrument and web-based entry system developed
• Automated algorithm created
• On-demand reports
• Periodic overall and site-specific summaries provided
• Audit of automated indication assignments
![Page 6: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
DATA COLLECTION FORM
• Front page– Patient Demographics– History & Risk
Factors,– Prior procedures &
Tests
• Back page– Current Study– Reference section
• Designed to be completed in one minute or less
![Page 7: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
METHODSSites of Pilot
State Locale # MD’s#
patients enrolled
Site 1 FL Urban 17 635
Site 2 FL Urban 7 1293
Site 3 WI Rural 15 1597
Site 4 FL Urban 20 1570
Site 5 OR Suburban 17 328
Site 6 AZ Suburban 9 938
![Page 9: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
METHODSEnrollment Periods
3/1/08 8/15/08 2/28/0910/15/08
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
On-demandReport
PaperReport
SITE 123456
1 SITE 23456
![Page 10: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
RESULTSPatient Characteristics (n =
6,351)
Age, years 65.7±11.8
Gender, male 3,729 58.7%
Diabetes 1,446 22.3%
Smoker 743 11.7%
Hypertension 4,856 76.7%
Hyperlipidemia 4,616 72.9%
Prior PCI 1,806 36.1%
Prior CABG 945 19.7%
Asymptomatic 2,414 38.0%
![Page 11: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
RISK ASSESSMENTAutomated Calculation and Indication
Assignment
5%
40%
49%
6%
Very LowLowModerateHigh
66%9%
25%
LowModerateHigh
SYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS(Diamond & Forrester)
ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS(Framingham; CHD Risk)
![Page 12: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
APPROPRIATENESS CLASSIFICATION(n = 6,351)
Appropriate66%
Uncertain14%
Inappropriate13%
Unclassifed7%
![Page 13: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
APPROPRIATENESS CLASSIFICATION Elimination of Unclassified (n =
5,928)
Appropriate71%
Uncertain15%
Inappropriate14%
![Page 14: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
APPROPRIATENESS CLASSIFICATION Based on Site
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6
InappropriateUncertainAppropriate
n = 578 1200 1448 1448 322 932
InappropriateRange: 4-22%
![Page 15: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
APPROPRIATENESS CATEGORYBased on Patient Factors
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Age >65 Age ≤65 Men Women
InappropriateUncertainAppropriate
p < 0.0001 p = 0.039n = 3,046 2,882 3,468 2,460
9.8% 19.3% 13.6% 15.5%
![Page 16: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
MOST COMMON “INAPPROPRIATE” INDICATIONS
INDICATION % INAPPRO INDICATIONS
% TOTAL STUDIES
Detection of CADAsymptomatic, low CHD risk 44.5% 6.0%
Asymptomatic, post-revascularization< 2 years after PCI, symptoms before PCI
23.8% 3.2%
Evaluation of chest pain, low probability ptInterpretable ECG and able to exercise
16.1% 2.2%
Asymptomatic or stable symptoms, known CAD< 1 year after cath or abnormal prior SPECT
3.9% 0.5%
Pre-operative assessmentLow risk surgery 3.8% 0.5 %
TOTAL 92.1% 12.4 %
![Page 17: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
APPROPRIATENESS CATEGORY Based on Referral
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Cardiologist Non-Cardiologist
InappropriateUncertainAppropriate
n = 4,792 n = 1,136
p < 0.0001
13.2%
16.1%
19.5%
70.7% 70.7%
9.9%
![Page 18: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
APPROPRIATENESS CATEGORY Based on Referral
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Within Practice Outside Practice
InappropriateUncertainAppropriate
n = 4,881 n = 1,047
p < 0.0001
13.2% 20.1%
16.0%
70.9%
10.1%
69.8%
![Page 19: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
FEEDBACK TO SITES
![Page 20: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
INAPPROPRIATE SPECT-MPITemporal Changes Based on Site
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
% Inappropriate
Site 1Site 2 Site 3Site 4
![Page 21: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
LIMITATIONS
• Non-evaluable data–Missing information–Conflicting indications
• Rolling recruitment with inconsistent time periods
• Lack of validation of computer-assigned indications–Multiple indications–Audits reveal variance
• Educational initiatives inconsistently applied
• Non-adjudicated SPECT interpretations
![Page 22: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
CONCLUSIONS
• Data collection and analysis regarding appropriate use of SPECT imaging is feasible in busy community practice environment–Easy to use, point-of-ordering tool with web-based data entry–Automated determination of appropriateness–On-demand, benchmarked reports
• Variable rates of test appropriateness
• Consistent inappropriate indications–Asymptomatic, low risk patient are most frequent
• Feedback/education may influence on practice habits
• Less inappropriate testing from cardiologists than non-cardiologists
![Page 23: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
IMPLICATIONS
• Physicians and other health care professionals, working with medical societies, recognize the current healthcare environment and are taking active measures to optimize performance and cost-effectiveness, while preserving patient access to evaluation and treatment procedures
• The development and implementation of AUC may offer an alternative to prior authorization/pre-certification approaches–Transparency –Expanded information regarding practice habits–Facilitation of on-going quality improvement–Movement toward point-of-order application–Potential for wide-scale utilization
• Establishment of partnership between ACC, imaging subspeciality society, and health plan regarding responsible approach to medical imaging and continuing emphasis on improving the quality of care
![Page 24: Presenter Disclosure Information](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/56815862550346895dc5bf00/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC)
• Support from UnitedHealthcare
• Leadership of ACC–Especially Douglas Weaver, Ralph Brindis, Michael Wolk, Pamela Douglas, Jack Lewin, and Janet Wright
• Staff from ACC, NCDR, and DCRI–Notably Joseph Allen, Karen Caruth, Wenqin Pan, and Nichole Kallas