late breaking clinical trial presentation at acc 2009
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
APPROPRIATENESS CLASSIFICATION(n = 6,351)
Appropriate66%
Uncertain14%
Inappropriate13%
Unclassifed7%
![Page 13: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
APPROPRIATENESS CLASSIFICATION Elimination of Unclassified (n =
5,928)
Appropriate71%
Uncertain15%
Inappropriate14%
![Page 14: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
FEEDBACK TO SITES
![Page 20: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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: Late Breaking Clinical Trial Presentation at ACC 2009](https://reader033.vdocument.in/reader033/viewer/2022051411/54811a78b379596f2b8b5c13/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