Physician Billing and Cardiac Stress Testing Patterns

Introduction: Guidelines recommend the use of cardiac stress testing to screen for occult coronary heart disease (CHD) among patients with ischemic stroke/TIA who have a ‘high risk’ Framingham Cardiac Risk score (FCRS). It is unclear whether implementation of this guideline confers a mortality benefit among patients with cerebrovascular disease. Hypothesis: We assessed the hypothesis that cardiac stress testing would be associated with lower odds of one-year all-cause mortality. Methods: Administrative data from a sample of 11,306 Veterans admitted to 134 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities with a stroke or TIA in fiscal year 2011 were analyzed. Patients were excluded (n=6915) on the basis of: prior CHD history, receipt of cardiac stress testing within 18-months prior to cerebrovascular event, death within 90 days of discharge, being discharged to hospice, transferred to a non-VHA acute care facility, or missing/unknown race. A FCRS was calculated for each patient; a score of ≥ 20% was classified as ‘high risk’ of having CHD. Administrative data were used to identify whether cardiac stress testing was performed within 90-days after the cerebrovascular event. Logistic regression was used to assess whether cardiac stress testing was associated with one-year all-cause mortality. Results: Of the 4391 eligible patients, 62.8% (2759) had FCRS ≥ 20%, with 4.5% (n=123) of these patients receiving cardiac stress testing within 90 days of discharge. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and medical comorbidities, FCRS ≥ 20% was associated with one-year mortality (aOR=2.18; CI 95 :1.59, 3.00), however, receipt of stress testing was not (aOR=0.59; CI 95 :0.26, 1.30). Conclusion: Cardiac screening did not confer a one-year all-cause mortality benefit among patients with cerebrovascular disease. Additional work is needed to assess outcomes among patients with cerebrovascular disease who are at ‘high risk’ for CHD.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Preoperative Assessment of Patient’s Metabolic Equivalents (METs) Estimated from History versus Measured by Exercise Cardiac Stress Testing

Anesthesiology Research and Practice ◽

10.1155/2018/5912726 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2018 ◽

pp. 1-5 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Adam S. Weinstein ◽

Martin I. Sigurdsson ◽

Angela M. Bader

Keyword(s):

Cardiac Failure ◽

Stress Testing ◽

Stress Test ◽

Preoperative Evaluation ◽

Preoperative Assessment ◽

Exercise Stress ◽

Cardiac Stress ◽

Metabolic Equivalents ◽

Cardiac Stress Testing ◽

Cardiac Stress Test

Background. Preoperative anesthetic evaluations of patients before surgery traditionally involves assessment of a patient’s functional capacity to estimate perioperative risk of cardiovascular complications and need for further workup. This is typically done by inquiring about the patient’s physical activity, with the goal of providing an estimate of the metabolic equivalents (METs) that the patient can perform without signs of myocardial ischemia or cardiac failure. We sought to compare estimates of patients’ METs between preoperative assessment by medical history with quantified assessment of METs via the exercise cardiac stress test. Methods. A single-center retrospective chart review from 12/1/2005 to 5/31/2015 was performed on 492 patients who had preoperative evaluations with a cardiac stress test ordered by a perioperative anesthesiologist. Of those, a total of 170 charts were identified as having a preoperative evaluation note and an exercise cardiac stress test. The METs of the patient estimated by history and the METs quantified by the exercise cardiac stress test were compared using a Bland–Altman plot and Cohen’s kappa. Results. Exercise cardiac stress test quantified METs were on average 3.3 METS higher than the METs estimated by the preoperative evaluation history. Only 9% of patients had lower METs quantified by the cardiac stress test than by history. Conclusions. The METs of a patient estimated by preoperative history often underestimates the METs measured by exercise stress testing. This demonstrates that the preoperative assessments of patients’ METs are often conservative which errs on the side of patient safety as it lowers the threshold for deciding to order further cardiac stress testing for screening for ischemia or cardiac failure.

Download Full-text