Fabunmi, Rosalind P.

Background Many patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis do not undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite clinical guidelines. This study analyzed the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow‐up, AVR, and mortality for patients with newly diagnosed severe aortic stenosis (sAS). Methods and Results We identified adults with newly diagnosed sAS per echocardiography performed between January 2017 and March 2019 using Optum electronic health record data. We then selected from those meeting all eligibility criteria patients managed by a primary care provider (n=1707 [25%]) or cardiac specialist (n=5039 [75%]). We evaluated the association of managing provider type with cardiac specialist follow‐up, AVR, and mortality, as well as the independent association of cardiac specialist follow‐up and AVR with mortality, within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS. A subgroup analysis was limited to patients with symptomatic sAS. Patient characteristics and comorbidities at baseline were used for covariate‐adjusted cause‐specific and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models assessing group differences in outcomes by managing provider type. An adjusted Cox proportional hazard model with additional time‐dependent covariates for follow‐up and AVR was used to assess these practices' association with mortality. Within 1 year of echocardiography detecting sAS, data revealed that primary care provider management was associated with lower rates of cardiac specialist follow‐up (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47 [95% CI, 0.43–0.50], P <0.0001) and AVR (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.53–0.64], P <0.0001) and with higher 1‐year mortality (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.26–1.66], P <0.0001). Cardiac specialist follow‐up and AVR were independently associated with lower mortality (follow‐up: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48–0.63], P <0.0001; AVR: HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.60–0.83], P <0.0001). Results were similar for patients with symptomatic sAS. All analyses were adjusted for baseline patient characteristics and comorbidities. Conclusions For patients newly diagnosed with sAS, we observed differences in rates of cardiac specialist follow‐up and AVR and risk of mortality between primary care provider‐ versus cardiologist‐managed patients with sAS. In addition, a lower likelihood of receiving follow‐up and AVR was independently associated with higher mortality.

A significant proportion of patients diagnosed with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (ssAS) do not receive treatment with aortic valve replacement (AVR) despite current ACC/AHA guidelines. Delayed care leads to increased hospitalizations, worsening heart failure and death. Timely referral to a cardiac specialist is a critical step in the treatment pathway. We sought to identify the impact of managing provider type on follow-up care for newly diagnosed patients with severe aortic stenosis (sAS). We analyzed Optum® electronic medical records to identify adults with a new outpatient sAS echo diagnosis in the pre-COVID era (1/2017 - 3/2019). We identified integrated delivery network patients alive 1d post echo excluding those with missing data or AVR within 3d of echo, then selected those managed by a primary care provider (PCP) or a cardiologist (n=5,683). Baseline characteristics were used for covariate-adjusted Cumulative Incidence Function and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models. We estimated the impact of managing provider type on the specialist follow-up visit rate (cardiologist, interventional cardiologist and/or cardiothoracic surgeon) for all sAS patients and of surgical or transcatheter AVR for ssAS patients within 1 year of diagnosis. Within 90d of sAS diagnosis, 47% of PCP- vs. 73% of cardiologist-managed patients had a follow-up visit (1-year rates: PCP, 69% vs. cardiologist, 90%; Hazard ratio [HR]=0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.59, p<0.0001). Within 1 year of diagnosis, 36% of PCP- vs. 51% of cardiologist-managed ssAS patients underwent AVR (HR=0.72, CI: 0.63-0.82, p<0.0001) (Figure). Analysis suggests lower referral rates for PCP- than cardiologist-managed patients. In ssAS, 1-year AVR rates were low, particularly for PCPs. These data underscore the importance of timely follow up of all severe AS patients for symptom assessment and appropriate treatment, presenting an opportunity for initiatives to drive behavior change.

Background— Few data have evaluated physician adherence to cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines according to physician specialty or patient characteristics, particularly gender. Methods and Results— An online study of 500 randomly selected physicians (300 primary care physicians, 100 obstetricians/gynecologists, and 100 cardiologists) used a standardized questionnaire to assess awareness of, adoption of, and barriers to national CVD prevention guidelines by specialty. An experimental case study design tested physician accuracy and determinants of CVD risk level assignment and application of guidelines among high-, intermediate-, or low-risk patients. Intermediate-risk women, as assessed by the Framingham risk score, were significantly more likely to be assigned to a lower-risk category by primary care physicians than men with identical risk profiles ( P <0.0001), and trends were similar for obstetricians/gynecologists and cardiologists. Assignment of risk level significantly predicted recommendations for lifestyle and preventive pharmacotherapy. After adjustment for risk assignment, the impact of patient gender on preventive care was not significant except for less aspirin ( P <0.01) and more weight management recommended ( P <0.04) for intermediate-risk women. Physicians did not rate themselves as very effective in their ability to help patients prevent CVD. Fewer than 1 in 5 physicians knew that more women than men die each year from CVD. Conclusions— Perception of risk was the primary factor associated with CVD preventive recommendations. Gender disparities in recommendations for preventive therapy were explained largely by the lower perceived risk despite similar calculated risk for women versus men. Educational interventions for physicians are needed to improve the quality of CVD preventive care and lower morbidity and mortality from CVD for men and women.