Provider-directed imaging stress testing reduces health care expenditures in lower-risk chest pain patients presenting to the emergency department

Chadwick D. Miller, James W. Hoekstra, Cedric Lefebvre, Howard Blumstein, Craig A. Hamilton, Erin N. Harper, Simon Mahler, Deborah B. Diercks, Rebecca Neiberg, W. Gregory Hundley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background-Among intermediate- to high-risk patients with chest pain, we have shown that a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress test strategy implemented in an observation unit (OU) reduces 1-year health care costs compared with inpatient care. In this study, we compare 2 OU strategies to determine among lower-risk patients if a mandatory CMR stress test strategy was more effective than a physicians' ability to select a stress test modality. Methods and Results-On emergency department arrival and referral to the OU for management of low- to intermediate-risk chest pain, 120 individuals were randomly assigned to receive (1) a CMR stress imaging test (n60) or (2) a provider-selected stress test (n60: stress echo [62%], CMR [32%], cardiac catheterization [3%], nuclear [2%], and coronary CT [2%]). No differences were detected in length of stay (median CMR24.2 hours versus 23.8 hours, P0.75), catheterization without revascularization (CMR0% versus 3%), appropriateness of admission decisions (CMR 87% versus 93%, P0.36), or 30-day acute coronary syndrome (both 3%). Median cost was higher among those randomly assigned to the CMR-mandated group ($2005 versus $1686, P<0.001). Conclusions-In patients with lower-risk chest pain receiving emergency department- directed OU care, the ability of a physician to select a cardiac stress imaging modality (including echocardiography, CMR, or radionuclide testing) was more cost-effective than a pathway that mandates a CMR stress test. Contrary to prior observations in individuals with intermediate- to high-risk chest pain, in those with lower-risk chest pain, these results highlight the importance of physician-related choices during acute coronary syndrome diagnostic protocols.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)111-118
Number of pages8
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Imaging
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2012

Fingerprint

Health Expenditures
Chest Pain
Hospital Emergency Service
Exercise Test
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Delivery of Health Care
Observation
Acute Coronary Syndrome
Physicians
Costs and Cost Analysis
Cardiac Catheterization
Catheterization
Radioisotopes
Health Care Costs
Echocardiography
Inpatients
Length of Stay
Referral and Consultation
Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Keywords

  • Chest pain diagnosis
  • Cost-benefit analysis
  • MRI
  • Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Provider-directed imaging stress testing reduces health care expenditures in lower-risk chest pain patients presenting to the emergency department. / Miller, Chadwick D.; Hoekstra, James W.; Lefebvre, Cedric; Blumstein, Howard; Hamilton, Craig A.; Harper, Erin N.; Mahler, Simon; Diercks, Deborah B.; Neiberg, Rebecca; Hundley, W. Gregory.

In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging, Vol. 5, No. 1, 01.2012, p. 111-118.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Miller, Chadwick D. ; Hoekstra, James W. ; Lefebvre, Cedric ; Blumstein, Howard ; Hamilton, Craig A. ; Harper, Erin N. ; Mahler, Simon ; Diercks, Deborah B. ; Neiberg, Rebecca ; Hundley, W. Gregory. / Provider-directed imaging stress testing reduces health care expenditures in lower-risk chest pain patients presenting to the emergency department. In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2012 ; Vol. 5, No. 1. pp. 111-118.
@article{b552f288563e4e5987e27b5d1034f545,
title = "Provider-directed imaging stress testing reduces health care expenditures in lower-risk chest pain patients presenting to the emergency department",
abstract = "Background-Among intermediate- to high-risk patients with chest pain, we have shown that a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress test strategy implemented in an observation unit (OU) reduces 1-year health care costs compared with inpatient care. In this study, we compare 2 OU strategies to determine among lower-risk patients if a mandatory CMR stress test strategy was more effective than a physicians' ability to select a stress test modality. Methods and Results-On emergency department arrival and referral to the OU for management of low- to intermediate-risk chest pain, 120 individuals were randomly assigned to receive (1) a CMR stress imaging test (n60) or (2) a provider-selected stress test (n60: stress echo [62{\%}], CMR [32{\%}], cardiac catheterization [3{\%}], nuclear [2{\%}], and coronary CT [2{\%}]). No differences were detected in length of stay (median CMR24.2 hours versus 23.8 hours, P0.75), catheterization without revascularization (CMR0{\%} versus 3{\%}), appropriateness of admission decisions (CMR 87{\%} versus 93{\%}, P0.36), or 30-day acute coronary syndrome (both 3{\%}). Median cost was higher among those randomly assigned to the CMR-mandated group ($2005 versus $1686, P<0.001). Conclusions-In patients with lower-risk chest pain receiving emergency department- directed OU care, the ability of a physician to select a cardiac stress imaging modality (including echocardiography, CMR, or radionuclide testing) was more cost-effective than a pathway that mandates a CMR stress test. Contrary to prior observations in individuals with intermediate- to high-risk chest pain, in those with lower-risk chest pain, these results highlight the importance of physician-related choices during acute coronary syndrome diagnostic protocols.",
keywords = "Chest pain diagnosis, Cost-benefit analysis, MRI, Trials",
author = "Miller, {Chadwick D.} and Hoekstra, {James W.} and Cedric Lefebvre and Howard Blumstein and Hamilton, {Craig A.} and Harper, {Erin N.} and Simon Mahler and Diercks, {Deborah B.} and Rebecca Neiberg and Hundley, {W. Gregory}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.111.965293",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "111--118",
journal = "Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging",
issn = "1941-9651",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Provider-directed imaging stress testing reduces health care expenditures in lower-risk chest pain patients presenting to the emergency department

AU - Miller, Chadwick D.

AU - Hoekstra, James W.

AU - Lefebvre, Cedric

AU - Blumstein, Howard

AU - Hamilton, Craig A.

AU - Harper, Erin N.

AU - Mahler, Simon

AU - Diercks, Deborah B.

AU - Neiberg, Rebecca

AU - Hundley, W. Gregory

PY - 2012/1

Y1 - 2012/1

N2 - Background-Among intermediate- to high-risk patients with chest pain, we have shown that a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress test strategy implemented in an observation unit (OU) reduces 1-year health care costs compared with inpatient care. In this study, we compare 2 OU strategies to determine among lower-risk patients if a mandatory CMR stress test strategy was more effective than a physicians' ability to select a stress test modality. Methods and Results-On emergency department arrival and referral to the OU for management of low- to intermediate-risk chest pain, 120 individuals were randomly assigned to receive (1) a CMR stress imaging test (n60) or (2) a provider-selected stress test (n60: stress echo [62%], CMR [32%], cardiac catheterization [3%], nuclear [2%], and coronary CT [2%]). No differences were detected in length of stay (median CMR24.2 hours versus 23.8 hours, P0.75), catheterization without revascularization (CMR0% versus 3%), appropriateness of admission decisions (CMR 87% versus 93%, P0.36), or 30-day acute coronary syndrome (both 3%). Median cost was higher among those randomly assigned to the CMR-mandated group ($2005 versus $1686, P<0.001). Conclusions-In patients with lower-risk chest pain receiving emergency department- directed OU care, the ability of a physician to select a cardiac stress imaging modality (including echocardiography, CMR, or radionuclide testing) was more cost-effective than a pathway that mandates a CMR stress test. Contrary to prior observations in individuals with intermediate- to high-risk chest pain, in those with lower-risk chest pain, these results highlight the importance of physician-related choices during acute coronary syndrome diagnostic protocols.

AB - Background-Among intermediate- to high-risk patients with chest pain, we have shown that a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) stress test strategy implemented in an observation unit (OU) reduces 1-year health care costs compared with inpatient care. In this study, we compare 2 OU strategies to determine among lower-risk patients if a mandatory CMR stress test strategy was more effective than a physicians' ability to select a stress test modality. Methods and Results-On emergency department arrival and referral to the OU for management of low- to intermediate-risk chest pain, 120 individuals were randomly assigned to receive (1) a CMR stress imaging test (n60) or (2) a provider-selected stress test (n60: stress echo [62%], CMR [32%], cardiac catheterization [3%], nuclear [2%], and coronary CT [2%]). No differences were detected in length of stay (median CMR24.2 hours versus 23.8 hours, P0.75), catheterization without revascularization (CMR0% versus 3%), appropriateness of admission decisions (CMR 87% versus 93%, P0.36), or 30-day acute coronary syndrome (both 3%). Median cost was higher among those randomly assigned to the CMR-mandated group ($2005 versus $1686, P<0.001). Conclusions-In patients with lower-risk chest pain receiving emergency department- directed OU care, the ability of a physician to select a cardiac stress imaging modality (including echocardiography, CMR, or radionuclide testing) was more cost-effective than a pathway that mandates a CMR stress test. Contrary to prior observations in individuals with intermediate- to high-risk chest pain, in those with lower-risk chest pain, these results highlight the importance of physician-related choices during acute coronary syndrome diagnostic protocols.

KW - Chest pain diagnosis

KW - Cost-benefit analysis

KW - MRI

KW - Trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863413198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863413198&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.111.965293

DO - 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.111.965293

M3 - Article

C2 - 22128195

AN - SCOPUS:84863413198

VL - 5

SP - 111

EP - 118

JO - Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging

JF - Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging

SN - 1941-9651

IS - 1

ER -