High-Value Care in the Evaluation of Stroke.

Value-based care emphasizes achieving the greatest overall health benefit for every dollar spent. We present an interesting case of stroke, which made us consider how frequently health care providers are utilizing value-based care. A 73-year-old Caucasian, who was initially admitted for a hypertensive emergency, was transferred to our facility for worsening slurring of speech and left-sided weakness. The patient had an extensive chronic cerebrovascular disease, including multiple embolic type strokes, mainly in the distribution of the right temporal-occipital cerebral artery and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs). The patient had a known history of patent foramen ovale (PFO) and occlusion of the right internal carotid artery. He was complicated by intracranial hemorrhage while on anticoagulation for pulmonary embolism. He was chronically on dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel) and statin.  Following the transfer, stroke protocol, including the activation of the stroke team, a computed tomography (CT) imaging study, and the rapid stabilization of the patient was initiated. His vitals were stable, and the physical examination was significant for the drooping of the left angle of the mouth, a nonreactive right pupil consistent with the previous stroke, a decreased strength in the left upper and lower extremities, and a faint systolic murmur. His previous stroke was shown to be embolic, involving both the right temporal and occipital regions, which was re-demonstrated in a CT scan. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of the brain showed a new, restricted diffusion in the right pons that was compatible with an acute stroke as well as diffusely atherosclerotic vessels with a focal stenosis of the branch vessels. A transthoracic echocardiogram demonstrated no new thrombus in the heart. A transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) showed known PFO, and repeat hypercoagulation evaluation was negative, as it was in his previous cerebrovascular accident (CVA) evaluation.  Appropriate medical treatment with antiplatelets, as indicated by the acute stroke guidelines, was started. The patient was not eligible for thrombolysis. Value-based care emphasizes the decreased usage in investigations or health care of options that do not contribute to the overall health and well-being of the patient. Given our patient's past medical history and the results of previous investigations, we questioned the value of ordering a hypercoagulable evaluation and TEE in our patient. The need for an evaluation of the hypercoagulable state in an elderly patient with ischemic stroke or TIA remains unknown. Our patient had a complete hypercoagulable evaluation done six years earlier. Repeating the hypercoagulable evaluation would not contribute to the treatment decisions and, as a result, would not satisfy the basic criteria for value-based care.The importance of a repeat TEE is uncertain in the evaluation of embolism for a known cause of stroke. Additionally, no change in management was anticipated regardless of the TEE findings, therefore, repeating TEE in our patient was an inappropriate use of resources. Being mindful of value-based care can reduce overall health care costs, maintain our role of being responsible stewards of our limited resources, and continue to provide high-value care for our patients.