Association Between Physician Follow-Up and Outcomes of Care After Chest Pain Assessment in High-Risk Patients

Background— Assessment of chest pain is one of the most common reasons for emergency department visits in developed countries. Although guidelines recommend primary care physician (PCP) follow-up for patients who are subsequently discharged, little is known about the relationship between physician follow-up and clinical outcomes. Methods and Results— An observational study was conducted on patients with higher baseline risk, defined as having diabetes mellitus or established cardiovascular disease, who were evaluated for chest pain, discharged, and without adverse clinical outcomes for 30 days in Ontario from 2004 to 2010. Multivariable proportional hazard models were constructed to adjust for potential confounding between physician groups (cardiologist, PCP, or none). Among 56767 included patients, 17% were evaluated by cardiologists, 58% were evaluated by PCPs alone, and 25% had no physician follow-up. The mean age was 66±15 years, and 53% were male. The highest rates of diagnostic testing, medical therapy, and coronary revascularization were seen among patients treated by cardiologists. At 1 year, the rate of death or MI was 5.5% (95% confidence interval, 5.0–5.9) in the cardiology group, 7.7% (95% confidence interval, 7.4–7.9) in the PCP group, and 8.6% (95% confidence interval, 8.2–9.1) in the no-physician group. After adjustment, cardiologist follow-up was associated with significantly lower adjusted hazard ratio of death or MI compared with PCP (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–0.92) and no physician (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–0.88) follow-up. Conclusions— Among patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk who were discharged from the emergency department after evaluation for chest pain in Ontario, follow-up with a cardiologist was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for MI at 1 year compared with follow-up with a PCP or no physician follow-up.

[1]  Stefan Gravenstein,et al.  The care transitions intervention: translating from efficacy to effectiveness. , 2011, Archives of internal medicine.

[2]  J. Herrin,et al.  Effectiveness and cost of a transitional care program for heart failure: a prospective study with concurrent controls. , 2011, Archives of internal medicine.

[3]  Hani Jneid,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in c , 2011, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  P. Austin,et al.  Improved Outcomes With Early Collaborative Care of Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients Discharged From the Emergency Department , 2010, Circulation.

[5]  R. Niska,et al.  National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2007 emergency department summary. , 2010, National health statistics reports.

[6]  P. Austin,et al.  Secular trends in acute coronary syndrome hospitalization from 1994 to 2005. , 2010, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[7]  H. Wiste,et al.  Clinical Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department Predicts Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes in a Population-Based Cohort Presenting With Acute Chest Pain: Primary Results of the Olmsted County Chest Pain Study , 2009, Medicine.

[8]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Regional and practice variation in adherence to guideline recommendations for secondary and primary prevention among outpatients with atherothrombosis or risk factors in the United States: a report from the REACH Registry. , 2009, Critical pathways in cardiology.

[9]  W. Gibler,et al.  Influence of Inpatient Service Specialty on Care Processes and Outcomes for Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes , 2007, Circulation.

[10]  R. Suter.  The risk of missed diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction associated with emergency department volume. , 2007, Annals of emergency medicine.

[11]  B. Carlin,et al.  Insurance status and access to urgent ambulatory care follow-up appointments. , 2005, JAMA.

[12]  E. Guadagnoli,et al.  Specialty of ambulatory care physicians and mortality among elderly patients after myocardial infarction. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  R Ruthazer,et al.  Missed diagnoses of acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  E J Topol,et al.  Cause of death in clinical research: time for a reassessment? , 1999, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  J. Gurwitz,et al.  Consultation between cardiologists and generalists in the management of acute myocardial infarction: implications for quality of care. , 1998, Archives of internal medicine.

[16]  C. Eaton,et al.  Outcome of acute myocardial infarction according to the specialty of the admitting physician. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  S. Gottlieb.  Dead is dead—artificial definitions are no substitute , 1997, The Lancet.

[18]  D. Hoover,et al.  Survivor Treatment Selection Bias in Observational Studies: Examples from the AIDS Literature , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  R. McKelvie,et al.  Canadian Cardiovascular Society consensus conference recommendations on heart failure 2006: diagnosis and management. , 2006, The Canadian journal of cardiology.