Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the US

Abstract Background There are limited data on the impact of imaging modality selection for the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk on downstream resource utilisation. This study sought to identify differences between patient populations in the US undergoing stress echocardiography, sing...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau, Emily Vandenbroucke, Minyi Lu, Olivia Li
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2023-05-01
Series:BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03218-7
_version_ 1797823044583948288
author Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau
Emily Vandenbroucke
Minyi Lu
Olivia Li
author_facet Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau
Emily Vandenbroucke
Minyi Lu
Olivia Li
author_sort Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background There are limited data on the impact of imaging modality selection for the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk on downstream resource utilisation. This study sought to identify differences between patient populations in the US undergoing stress echocardiography, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), positron emission tomography (PET) MPI, and coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) for the assessment of CAD risk, and associated physician referral patterns. Methods Claims and electronic health records data for 2.5 million US patients who received stress echocardiography, cCTA, SPECT MPI or PET MPI between January 2016 and March 2018, from the Decision Resources Group Real-World Evidence US Data Repository, were analysed. Patients were stratified into suspected and existing CAD cohorts, and further stratified by pre-test risk and presence and recency of interventions or acute cardiac events (within 1–2 years pre-index test). Linear and logistic regression were used to compare numeric and categorical variables. Results Physicians were more likely to refer patients to standalone SPECT MPI (77%) and stress echocardiography (18%) than PET MPI (3%) and cCTA (2%). Overall, 43% of physicians referred more than 90% of their patients to standalone SPECT MPI. Just 3%, 1% and 1% of physicians referred more than 90% of their patients to stress echocardiography, PET MPI or cCTA. At the aggregated imaging level, patients who underwent stress echocardiography or cCTA had similar comorbidity profiles. Comorbidity profiles were also similar for patients who underwent SPECT MPI and PET MPI. Conclusion Most patients underwent SPECT MPI at the index date, with very few undergoing PET MPI or cCTA. Patients who underwent cCTA at the index date were more likely to undergo additional imaging tests compared with those who underwent other imaging modalities. Further evidence is needed to understand factors influencing imaging test selection across patient populations.
first_indexed 2024-03-13T10:18:15Z
format Article
id doaj.art-e15570a57d604c5a9d956fb166e0af60
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1471-2261
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-13T10:18:15Z
publishDate 2023-05-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
spelling doaj.art-e15570a57d604c5a9d956fb166e0af602023-05-21T11:08:00ZengBMCBMC Cardiovascular Disorders1471-22612023-05-0123111110.1186/s12872-023-03218-7Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the USMatthieu Pelletier-Galarneau0Emily Vandenbroucke1Minyi Lu2Olivia Li3Department of Medical Imaging, Montreal Heart InstituteGE HealthcareGE HealthcareClarivate AnalyticsAbstract Background There are limited data on the impact of imaging modality selection for the assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk on downstream resource utilisation. This study sought to identify differences between patient populations in the US undergoing stress echocardiography, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), positron emission tomography (PET) MPI, and coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) for the assessment of CAD risk, and associated physician referral patterns. Methods Claims and electronic health records data for 2.5 million US patients who received stress echocardiography, cCTA, SPECT MPI or PET MPI between January 2016 and March 2018, from the Decision Resources Group Real-World Evidence US Data Repository, were analysed. Patients were stratified into suspected and existing CAD cohorts, and further stratified by pre-test risk and presence and recency of interventions or acute cardiac events (within 1–2 years pre-index test). Linear and logistic regression were used to compare numeric and categorical variables. Results Physicians were more likely to refer patients to standalone SPECT MPI (77%) and stress echocardiography (18%) than PET MPI (3%) and cCTA (2%). Overall, 43% of physicians referred more than 90% of their patients to standalone SPECT MPI. Just 3%, 1% and 1% of physicians referred more than 90% of their patients to stress echocardiography, PET MPI or cCTA. At the aggregated imaging level, patients who underwent stress echocardiography or cCTA had similar comorbidity profiles. Comorbidity profiles were also similar for patients who underwent SPECT MPI and PET MPI. Conclusion Most patients underwent SPECT MPI at the index date, with very few undergoing PET MPI or cCTA. Patients who underwent cCTA at the index date were more likely to undergo additional imaging tests compared with those who underwent other imaging modalities. Further evidence is needed to understand factors influencing imaging test selection across patient populations.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03218-7Diagnostic imagingCoronary artery diseaseCoronary angiographyMyocardial perfusion imagingSingle-photon emission computed tomography
spellingShingle Matthieu Pelletier-Galarneau
Emily Vandenbroucke
Minyi Lu
Olivia Li
Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the US
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
Diagnostic imaging
Coronary artery disease
Coronary angiography
Myocardial perfusion imaging
Single-photon emission computed tomography
title Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the US
title_full Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the US
title_fullStr Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the US
title_full_unstemmed Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the US
title_short Characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the US
title_sort characteristics and key differences between patient populations receiving imaging modalities for coronary artery disease diagnosis in the us
topic Diagnostic imaging
Coronary artery disease
Coronary angiography
Myocardial perfusion imaging
Single-photon emission computed tomography
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03218-7
work_keys_str_mv AT matthieupelletiergalarneau characteristicsandkeydifferencesbetweenpatientpopulationsreceivingimagingmodalitiesforcoronaryarterydiseasediagnosisintheus
AT emilyvandenbroucke characteristicsandkeydifferencesbetweenpatientpopulationsreceivingimagingmodalitiesforcoronaryarterydiseasediagnosisintheus
AT minyilu characteristicsandkeydifferencesbetweenpatientpopulationsreceivingimagingmodalitiesforcoronaryarterydiseasediagnosisintheus
AT oliviali characteristicsandkeydifferencesbetweenpatientpopulationsreceivingimagingmodalitiesforcoronaryarterydiseasediagnosisintheus