La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dell'elettrocardiogramma dinamico secondo Holter

Alberto Genovesi Ebert; Mirco Magnani; Michele Galli; Roberto Lorenzoni; R. Macrì; D. Bernardi; C. Volterrani; V. Mazzoni; G. Barletta; G. F. Gensini; F. Mazzuoli; A. Zuppiroli; F. Mori; F. Pieri; R. Vergassola; M. Nannini; G. Zambaldi; S. Cerisano; C. Landini; S. Severi; A. Digiorgio; C. Venturini; M. Raugi; U. Baldini; M. T. Savoia; M. Paoletti; L. Cortigiani; L. Odoguardi; L. Zanetti; M. Lazzari; V. Bonatti; R. Giannini; W. Vergoni; A. Franchi; M. De Tommasi; A. Boem; P. Fontanive; G. Ferrante; G. Baggiani; U. Conti; E. Cabani; F. Del Citerna; A. Bartolozzi; L. Tonelli; P. Baldini; G. Tartarini; F. Lattanzi; E. Orsini; B. Reishenofer; S. Giaconi; D. Levantesi; R. Dabizzi; A. M. Traini; D. Mondanelli; M. Magni; A. Pesola; D. Nevola; R. Poddighe; S. Mandorla; S. Galiotto; G. Saba; L. Rey; M. Provvidenza; N. Piccioni

La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dell'elettrocardiogramma dinamico secondo Holter

Translated title of the contribution: The evaluation of the appropriateness of prescription of non-invasive diagnostic tests in cardiology: The case of Holter monitoring

Alberto Genovesi Ebert, Mirco Magnani, Michele Galli, Roberto Lorenzoni, R. Macrì, D. Bernardi, C. Volterrani, V. Mazzoni, G. Barletta, G. F. Gensini, F. Mazzuoli, A. Zuppiroli, F. Mori, F. Pieri, R. Vergassola, M. Nannini, G. Zambaldi, S. Cerisano, C. Landini, S. SeveriA. Digiorgio, C. Venturini, M. Raugi, U. Baldini, M. T. Savoia, M. Paoletti, L. Cortigiani, L. Odoguardi, L. Zanetti, M. Lazzari, V. Bonatti, R. Giannini, W. Vergoni, A. Franchi, M. De Tommasi, A. Boem, P. Fontanive, G. Ferrante, G. Baggiani, U. Conti, E. Cabani, F. Del Citerna, A. Bartolozzi, L. Tonelli, P. Baldini, G. Tartarini, F. Lattanzi, E. Orsini, B. Reishenofer, S. Giaconi, D. Levantesi, R. Dabizzi, A. M. Traini, D. Mondanelli, M. Magni, A. Pesola, D. Nevola, R. Poddighe, S. Mandorla, S. Galiotto, G. Saba, L. Rey, M. Provvidenza, N. Piccioni

Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Background. We evaluated the appropriateness of indications to Holter monitoring performed on ambulatory patients during 4 weeks in 21 laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. Methods. We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs non-cardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. Results. We evaluated 863 prescriptions (population: 435 males, 428 females; mean age 64 years, range 15-90 years). The indications to the test were of class I (appropriate) in 59.6%, of class II (doubtfully appropriate) in 11.7%, and of class III (inappropriate) in 28.7% of the cases. In 33% of the cases the exam was considered abnormal. In particular, an abnormal result was found in 37.9% of class I, in 36.7% of class II, and in 24.5 % of class III exams (p <0.05). The exam was considered useful in 46.7% of the cases. In particular, a useful result was found in 59.2% of class I, in 45.5% of class II, and in 21% of class III exams (p <0.05). Cardiologists prescribed 373/863 tests (43.2%). Their indications were of class I in 67.6%, of class II in 12% and of class III in 24% of the cases vs 53.7,11.4 and 34.9% of non-cardiologists' prescriptions (p <0.05). Abnormal findings were found in 40% of cardiologist- vs 27.6% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.31-2.32; p <0.05); similarly, clinically useful information could be derived from 59.8% of cardiologist- vs 36.7% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 2.56, 95% confidence interval 1.94-3.37; p <0.05). Conclusions. In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, about 40% of Holter exams are inappropriate; appropriately prescribed exams are more often abnormal and useful; cardiologist-prescribed exams are significantly more appropriate, abnormal and useful.

Translated title of the contribution	The evaluation of the appropriateness of prescription of non-invasive diagnostic tests in cardiology: The case of Holter monitoring
Original language	Italian
Pages (from-to)	619-623
Number of pages	5
Journal	Italian Heart Journal Supplement
Volume	3
Issue number	6
Publication status	Published - 2002

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Genovesi Ebert, A., Magnani, M., Galli, M., Lorenzoni, R., Macrì, R., Bernardi, D., Volterrani, C., Mazzoni, V., Barletta, G., Gensini, G. F., Mazzuoli, F., Zuppiroli, A., Mori, F., Pieri, F., Vergassola, R., Nannini, M., Zambaldi, G., Cerisano, S., Landini, C., ... Piccioni, N. (2002). La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dell'elettrocardiogramma dinamico secondo Holter. Italian Heart Journal Supplement, 3(6), 619-623.

Genovesi Ebert, A, Magnani, M, Galli, M, Lorenzoni, R, Macrì, R, Bernardi, D, Volterrani, C, Mazzoni, V, Barletta, G, Gensini, GF, Mazzuoli, F, Zuppiroli, A, Mori, F, Pieri, F, Vergassola, R, Nannini, M, Zambaldi, G, Cerisano, S, Landini, C, Severi, S, Digiorgio, A, Venturini, C, Raugi, M, Baldini, U, Savoia, MT, Paoletti, M, Cortigiani, L, Odoguardi, L, Zanetti, L, Lazzari, M, Bonatti, V, Giannini, R, Vergoni, W, Franchi, A, De Tommasi, M, Boem, A, Fontanive, P, Ferrante, G, Baggiani, G, Conti, U, Cabani, E, Del Citerna, F, Bartolozzi, A, Tonelli, L, Baldini, P, Tartarini, G, Lattanzi, F, Orsini, E, Reishenofer, B, Giaconi, S, Levantesi, D, Dabizzi, R, Traini, AM, Mondanelli, D, Magni, M, Pesola, A, Nevola, D, Poddighe, R, Mandorla, S, Galiotto, S, Saba, G, Rey, L, Provvidenza, M & Piccioni, N 2002, 'La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dell'elettrocardiogramma dinamico secondo Holter', Italian Heart Journal Supplement, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 619-623.

@article{15473125fdd14627b78e467c08539342,

title = "La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dell'elettrocardiogramma dinamico secondo Holter",

abstract = "Background. We evaluated the appropriateness of indications to Holter monitoring performed on ambulatory patients during 4 weeks in 21 laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. Methods. We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs non-cardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. Results. We evaluated 863 prescriptions (population: 435 males, 428 females; mean age 64 years, range 15-90 years). The indications to the test were of class I (appropriate) in 59.6%, of class II (doubtfully appropriate) in 11.7%, and of class III (inappropriate) in 28.7% of the cases. In 33% of the cases the exam was considered abnormal. In particular, an abnormal result was found in 37.9% of class I, in 36.7% of class II, and in 24.5 % of class III exams (p <0.05). The exam was considered useful in 46.7% of the cases. In particular, a useful result was found in 59.2% of class I, in 45.5% of class II, and in 21% of class III exams (p <0.05). Cardiologists prescribed 373/863 tests (43.2%). Their indications were of class I in 67.6%, of class II in 12% and of class III in 24% of the cases vs 53.7,11.4 and 34.9% of non-cardiologists' prescriptions (p <0.05). Abnormal findings were found in 40% of cardiologist- vs 27.6% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.31-2.32; p <0.05); similarly, clinically useful information could be derived from 59.8% of cardiologist- vs 36.7% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 2.56, 95% confidence interval 1.94-3.37; p <0.05). Conclusions. In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, about 40% of Holter exams are inappropriate; appropriately prescribed exams are more often abnormal and useful; cardiologist-prescribed exams are significantly more appropriate, abnormal and useful.",

keywords = "Appropriateness, Holter",

author = "{Genovesi Ebert}, Alberto and Mirco Magnani and Michele Galli and Roberto Lorenzoni and R. Macr{\`i} and D. Bernardi and C. Volterrani and V. Mazzoni and G. Barletta and Gensini, {G. F.} and F. Mazzuoli and A. Zuppiroli and F. Mori and F. Pieri and R. Vergassola and M. Nannini and G. Zambaldi and S. Cerisano and C. Landini and S. Severi and A. Digiorgio and C. Venturini and M. Raugi and U. Baldini and Savoia, {M. T.} and M. Paoletti and L. Cortigiani and L. Odoguardi and L. Zanetti and M. Lazzari and V. Bonatti and R. Giannini and W. Vergoni and A. Franchi and {De Tommasi}, M. and A. Boem and P. Fontanive and G. Ferrante and G. Baggiani and U. Conti and E. Cabani and {Del Citerna}, F. and A. Bartolozzi and L. Tonelli and P. Baldini and G. Tartarini and F. Lattanzi and E. Orsini and B. Reishenofer and S. Giaconi and D. Levantesi and R. Dabizzi and Traini, {A. M.} and D. Mondanelli and M. Magni and A. Pesola and D. Nevola and R. Poddighe and S. Mandorla and S. Galiotto and G. Saba and L. Rey and M. Provvidenza and N. Piccioni",

year = "2002",

language = "Italian",

volume = "3",

pages = "619--623",

journal = "Italian Heart Journal Supplement",

issn = "1129-4728",

publisher = "Centro Editoriale Pubblicitario Italiano",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dell'elettrocardiogramma dinamico secondo Holter

AU - Genovesi Ebert, Alberto

AU - Magnani, Mirco

AU - Galli, Michele

AU - Lorenzoni, Roberto

AU - Macrì, R.

AU - Bernardi, D.

AU - Volterrani, C.

AU - Mazzoni, V.

AU - Barletta, G.

AU - Gensini, G. F.

AU - Mazzuoli, F.

AU - Zuppiroli, A.

AU - Mori, F.

AU - Pieri, F.

AU - Vergassola, R.

AU - Nannini, M.

AU - Zambaldi, G.

AU - Cerisano, S.

AU - Landini, C.

AU - Severi, S.

AU - Digiorgio, A.

AU - Venturini, C.

AU - Raugi, M.

AU - Baldini, U.

AU - Savoia, M. T.

AU - Paoletti, M.

AU - Cortigiani, L.

AU - Odoguardi, L.

AU - Zanetti, L.

AU - Lazzari, M.

AU - Bonatti, V.

AU - Giannini, R.

AU - Vergoni, W.

AU - Franchi, A.

AU - De Tommasi, M.

AU - Boem, A.

AU - Fontanive, P.

AU - Ferrante, G.

AU - Baggiani, G.

AU - Conti, U.

AU - Cabani, E.

AU - Del Citerna, F.

AU - Bartolozzi, A.

AU - Tonelli, L.

AU - Baldini, P.

AU - Tartarini, G.

AU - Lattanzi, F.

AU - Orsini, E.

AU - Reishenofer, B.

AU - Giaconi, S.

AU - Levantesi, D.

AU - Dabizzi, R.

AU - Traini, A. M.

AU - Mondanelli, D.

AU - Magni, M.

AU - Pesola, A.

AU - Nevola, D.

AU - Poddighe, R.

AU - Mandorla, S.

AU - Galiotto, S.

AU - Saba, G.

AU - Rey, L.

AU - Provvidenza, M.

AU - Piccioni, N.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Background. We evaluated the appropriateness of indications to Holter monitoring performed on ambulatory patients during 4 weeks in 21 laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. Methods. We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs non-cardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. Results. We evaluated 863 prescriptions (population: 435 males, 428 females; mean age 64 years, range 15-90 years). The indications to the test were of class I (appropriate) in 59.6%, of class II (doubtfully appropriate) in 11.7%, and of class III (inappropriate) in 28.7% of the cases. In 33% of the cases the exam was considered abnormal. In particular, an abnormal result was found in 37.9% of class I, in 36.7% of class II, and in 24.5 % of class III exams (p <0.05). The exam was considered useful in 46.7% of the cases. In particular, a useful result was found in 59.2% of class I, in 45.5% of class II, and in 21% of class III exams (p <0.05). Cardiologists prescribed 373/863 tests (43.2%). Their indications were of class I in 67.6%, of class II in 12% and of class III in 24% of the cases vs 53.7,11.4 and 34.9% of non-cardiologists' prescriptions (p <0.05). Abnormal findings were found in 40% of cardiologist- vs 27.6% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.31-2.32; p <0.05); similarly, clinically useful information could be derived from 59.8% of cardiologist- vs 36.7% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 2.56, 95% confidence interval 1.94-3.37; p <0.05). Conclusions. In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, about 40% of Holter exams are inappropriate; appropriately prescribed exams are more often abnormal and useful; cardiologist-prescribed exams are significantly more appropriate, abnormal and useful.

AB - Background. We evaluated the appropriateness of indications to Holter monitoring performed on ambulatory patients during 4 weeks in 21 laboratories in Tuscany and Umbria, Italy. Methods. We collected the following data: the appropriateness of the prescription (according to the guidelines of the Italian Federation of Cardiology), the prescribing physician (cardiologist vs non-cardiologist), the synthetic result (normal vs abnormal) and the clinical utility (useful vs useless) of each exam. Results. We evaluated 863 prescriptions (population: 435 males, 428 females; mean age 64 years, range 15-90 years). The indications to the test were of class I (appropriate) in 59.6%, of class II (doubtfully appropriate) in 11.7%, and of class III (inappropriate) in 28.7% of the cases. In 33% of the cases the exam was considered abnormal. In particular, an abnormal result was found in 37.9% of class I, in 36.7% of class II, and in 24.5 % of class III exams (p <0.05). The exam was considered useful in 46.7% of the cases. In particular, a useful result was found in 59.2% of class I, in 45.5% of class II, and in 21% of class III exams (p <0.05). Cardiologists prescribed 373/863 tests (43.2%). Their indications were of class I in 67.6%, of class II in 12% and of class III in 24% of the cases vs 53.7,11.4 and 34.9% of non-cardiologists' prescriptions (p <0.05). Abnormal findings were found in 40% of cardiologist- vs 27.6% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.31-2.32; p <0.05); similarly, clinically useful information could be derived from 59.8% of cardiologist- vs 36.7% of non-cardiologist-prescribed examinations (odds ratio 2.56, 95% confidence interval 1.94-3.37; p <0.05). Conclusions. In Tuscany and Umbria, Italy, about 40% of Holter exams are inappropriate; appropriately prescribed exams are more often abnormal and useful; cardiologist-prescribed exams are significantly more appropriate, abnormal and useful.

KW - Appropriateness

KW - Holter

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036063109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036063109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Articolo

C2 - 12116811

AN - SCOPUS:0036063109

SN - 1129-4728

VL - 3

SP - 619

EP - 623

JO - Italian Heart Journal Supplement

JF - Italian Heart Journal Supplement

IS - 6

ER -

La valutazione dell'appropriatezza della prescrizione dell'elettrocardiogramma dinamico secondo Holter

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this