Trends in Cardiovascular Information Systems | 2016

Click Here To Download Report

At its best, a CVIS does what it’s meant to do: it mines and reports critical cardiovascular related data, and it’s easy to use. At its worst, a CVIS produces headaches, increases costs, and generally gets in the way. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon–or in this case, a heart surgeon– to draw this conclusion: If it’s hard to use, it’s practically useless. Yet many providers are still working with sub-par solutions, usually opting to go with a one-size-fits-all vendor, while keeping one eye open for a CVIS that can satisfy basic needs such as reporting capabilities and ease-of-use. Which vendors are leaving the door open to being replaced and which vendors are providers looking at to help them move cardiovascular medicine into the future? These findings go straight to the source by asking chiefs of cardiology, CV department directors, and other leaders what CVIS solution can get the job done– and whether or not that solution is currently being used.  

Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 12.49.36 PM Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 12.54.24 PM


Expected Change in Number of Procedures

This data breaks down the specific reasons providers gave when predicting an increase or decrease in the number of procedures over the next two years. And guess what? Everyone is saying the same thing.

Vendor Recommendation Ratings

There are a few vendors that providers are willing to recommend– and others that are fighting an uphill battle. What titles are feeling lukewarm?

CVIS Replacement Market (A.K.A. Blood Sport)

Say it with us: C-H-U-R-N. Close to half of our nearly 200 participants state that they are seriously considering replacing their current CVIS in the near future. However, without any highly rated supplier solutions in this department, the post honeymoon relationship is likely to be underwhelming.