Patient Use and Clinical Practice Patterns of Remote Cardiology Clinic Visits in the Era of COVID-19

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits. OBJECTIVE: To understand whether the transition to remote visits is associated with disparities in patient use of care, diagnostic test ordering, and medication prescribing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County, California, during 2 periods: April 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019 (pre-COVID) and April 1 to December 31, 2020 (COVID-era). Statistical analysis was performed from January to February 2021. EXPOSURE: In-person or remote ambulatory cardiology clinic visit at one of 31 during the pre-COVID period or COVID-era period. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Comparison of patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across 4 visit types (pre-COVID in-person (reference), COVID-era in-person, COVID-era video, COVID-era telephone). RESULTS: This study analyzed data from 87 182 pre-COVID in-person, 74 498 COVID-era in-person, 4720 COVID-era video, and 10 381 COVID-era telephone visits. Across visits, 79 572 patients were female (45.0%), 127 080 patients were non-Hispanic White (71.9%), and the mean (SD) age was 68.1 (17.0) years. Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic individuals (24 934 pre-COVID in-person visits [28.6%] vs 19 742 COVID-era in-person visits [26.5%] vs 3633 COVID-era video visits [30.4%] vs 1435 COVID-era telephone visits [35.0%]; P < .001 for all comparisons), have private insurance (34 063 pre-COVID in-person visits [39.1%] vs 25 474 COVID-era in-person visits [34.2%] vs 2562 COVID-era video visits [54.3%] vs 4264 COVID-era telephone visits [41.1%]; P < .001 for COVID-era in-person vs video and COVID-era in-person vs telephone), and have cardiovascular comorbidities (eg, hypertension: 37 166 pre-COVID in-person visits [42.6%] vs 31 359 COVID-era in-person visits [42.1%] vs 2006 COVID-era video visits [42.5%] vs 5181 COVID-era telephone visits [49.9%]; P < .001 for COVID-era in-person vs telephone; and heart failure: 14 319 pre-COVID in-person visits [16.4%] vs 10 488 COVID-era in-person visits [14.1%] vs 1172 COVID-era video visits [24.8%] vs 2674 COVID-era telephone visits [25.8%]; P < .001 for COVID-era in-person vs video and COVID-era in-person vs telephone). After adjusting for patient and visit characteristics and in comparison with pre-COVID in-person visits, during video and telephone visits, clinicians had lower odds of ordering any medication (COVID-era in-person: odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.60-0.64], COVID-era video: OR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.20-0.24]; COVID-era telephone: OR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.13-0.15]) or tests, such as electrocardiograms (COVID-era in-person: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.58-0.62]; COVID-era video: OR, 0.03 [95% CI, 0.02-0.04]; COVID-era telephone: OR, 0.02 [95% CI, 0.01-0.03]) or echocardiograms (COVID-era in-person: OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.18-1.24]; COVID-era video: OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.42-0.52]; COVID-era telephone: OR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.25-0.31]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients who were Asian, Black, or Hispanic, had private insurance, and had at least one of several cardiovascular comorbidities used remote cardiovascular care more frequently in the COVID-era period. Clinician ordering of diagnostic testing and medications consistently decreased when comparing pre-COVID vs COVID-era and in-person vs remote visits. Further studies are needed to clarify whether these decreases represent a reduction in the overuse of tests and medications vs an underuse of indicated testing and prescribing.