1. Association Between Patient Survival and Clinician Variability in Treatment Rates for Aortic Valve Stenosis.
- Author
-
Brennan JM, Lowenstern A, Sheridan P, Boero IJ, Thourani VH, Vemulapalli S, Wang TY, Liska O, Gander S, Jager J, Leon MB, and Peterson ED
- Subjects
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aortic Valve Stenosis diagnostic imaging, Aortic Valve Stenosis mortality, Aortic Valve Stenosis physiopathology, Clinical Decision-Making, Electronic Health Records, Female, Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation adverse effects, Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation mortality, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Natural Language Processing, Retrospective Studies, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement adverse effects, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement mortality, Treatment Outcome, Aortic Valve Stenosis surgery, Cardiologists trends, Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation trends, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care trends, Practice Patterns, Physicians' trends, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement trends
- Abstract
Background Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (ssAS) have a high mortality risk and compromised quality of life. Surgical/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a Class I recommendation, but it is unclear if this recommendation is uniformly applied. We determined the impact of managing cardiologists on the likelihood of ssAS treatment. Methods and Results Using natural language processing of Optum electronic health records, we identified 26 438 patients with newly diagnosed ssAS (2011-2016). Multilevel, multivariable Fine-Gray competing risk models clustered by cardiologists were used to determine the impact of cardiologists on the likelihood of 1-year AVR treatment. Within 1 year of diagnosis, 35.6% of patients with ssAS received an AVR; however, rates varied widely among managing cardiologists (0%, lowest quartile; 100%, highest quartile [median, 29.6%; 25th-75th percentiles, 13.3%-47.0%]). The odds of receiving AVR varied >2-fold depending on the cardiologist (median odds ratio for AVR, 2.25; 95% CI, 2.14-2.36). Compared with patients with ssAS of cardiologists with the highest treatment rates, those treated by cardiologists with the lowest AVR rates experienced significantly higher 1-year mortality (lowest quartile, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.13-1.33). Conclusions Overall AVR rates for ssAS were low, highlighting a potential challenge for ssAS management in the United States. Cardiologist AVR use varied substantially; patients treated by cardiologists with lower AVR rates had higher mortality rates than those treated by cardiologists with higher AVR rates.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF