Premium Reports
Cardiology 2015

Cardiology 2015
Consolidation Options Emerge

Authored by: Monique Rasband December 3, 2015 | Read Time: 2  minutes

Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 4/15/2021 3:02:18 AM and Model.reportId = 988

In a historically fragmented market, providers are consolidating their cardiology solutions. To find out which vendor has the most comprehensive solution and which vendors have the strongest structured reporting tools, KLAS interviewed 144 providers, targeting those who have already consolidated their structured reporting tools to a single vendor in at least two areas. KLAS also interviewed providers about the integration and workflow of their hemodynamics solutions.

Healthcare Providers,
Want to see more reports?

Not a Provider, contact us for pricing details.

HtmlReportContent Current Time Inside Cache Tag Helper: 4/15/2021 3:02:18 AM and Model.reportId= 988 and Model.HtmlReportContent_LastWriteTimeUtcInTicks=637508355335719823


Users of top-performing Merge Cardio use more of its reporting modules than do customers of any other vendor. Merge is a strong option for those looking for a single-vendor solution, offering comprehensive, top-tier structured reporting. Though the functionality is not the most robust in every area, in weaker areas, like EP and cath, Merge’s support helps providers still be successful. What impact IBM’s acquisition of Merge will have is yet unknown. McKesson is a clear second to Merge, with broad adoption and solid echo and cath reporting tools. LUMEDX is strong for cath and EP, with lower usage in other areas.

cardiology vendor performance and adoption


INFINITT's web-based solution is increasing in adoption due to its flexible and customizable out-of-the-box functionality. Early feedback from providers indicates high performance in echo and vascular, with some EP and nuc med adoption. Epic’s immature structured reporting has improved in the last year; it is still not on par with competitors’ products. For a number of market mainstays, more than 40% of respondents have plans to leave or would leave their product if they could: Agfa and Fuji customers report very slow development and poor support; Digisonics has struggled to expand beyond echo, leading to dropping performance in recent years; and GE’s new platform—which has been available for the last couple of years—has yet to see adoption.

customer retention and satisfaction


Workflow improvements and better customization options have helped providers succeed with McKesson (in cath and echo) and Merge (in vascular and nuc med), though no single solution offers top capabilities for every structured reporting module. Clinicians report a seamless flow of measurements into McKesson’s product, resulting in an intuitive workflow. Merge guides customers through the install and template build. Cath reporting is still a weak point for all vendors, while some LUMEDX customers have achieved success through their own customization efforts.

structured reporting strength and adoption


Users of Merge Hemo praise its ease of use, flexibility, and intuitive workflow. It offers tight interfacing to various EMRs, especially Epic’s and Cerner’s (via a formal partnership) and with Merge Cardio. McKesson’s hemo customers— who primarily use McKesson’s CVIS—report an easy-to-use product with a strong workflow. In contrast, GE Healthcare customers feel their system is old and lacks development. Philips’ customers struggled with the migration from the Witt platform and continue to report poor integration and slow development. The limited number of Siemens customers point to an improving experience but little to no interoperability with EMR or CVIS solutions.

hemodynamics vendor performance

 Download Report Brief  Download Full Report

This material is copyrighted. Any organization gaining unauthorized access to this report will be liable to compensate KLAS for the full retail price. Please see the KLAS DATA USE POLICY for information regarding use of this report. © 2021 KLAS Research, LLC. All Rights Reserved. NOTE: Performance scores may change significantly when including newly interviewed provider organizations, especially when added to a smaller sample size like in emerging markets with a small number of live clients. The findings presented are not meant to be conclusive data for an entire client base.