Literature DB >> 18711152

Appropriateness criteria for coronary angiography in angina: reliability and validity.

Harry Hemingway1, Ruoling Chen, Cornelia Junghans, Adam Timmis, Sandra Eldridge, Nick Black, Paul Shekelle, Gene Feder.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evaluated criteria for tailoring the decision to perform coronary angiography in specific clinical scenarios are lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and prognostic validity of patient-specific appropriateness criteria for coronary angiography among patients with suspected angina pectoris.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study. Two independent panels of clinicians scored 2400 patient-specific indications for coronary angiography as inappropriate, uncertain, or appropriate. Using a simple computer algorithm, patients were matched to 1 of these indications.
SETTING: 6 urban ambulatory care clinics in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: 9356 consecutive patients with recent-onset chest pain in whom stable angina was suspected. MEASUREMENTS: Appropriateness ratings and clinical outcomes (coronary death and acute coronary syndrome events) over a median of 3 years of follow-up.
RESULTS: 660 coronary deaths or acute coronary syndrome events occurred. Agreement between the 2 panels (reliability) on appropriateness category was moderate (weighted kappa = 0.58; P < 0.001). Use of subsequent angiography was strongly related to appropriateness category (P for linear trend <0.001) according to scores from either panel. Among patients judged as appropriate candidates for angiography, underuse was common (57% according to panel A and 71.3% according to panel B), and not undergoing coronary angiography was associated with higher coronary event rates than was undergoing the procedure. The hazard ratio after adjustment for age, sex, exercise electrocardiography result, and secondary prevention medication was similar according to panel A (2.78 [95% CI, 1.77 to 4.37]) and panel B (2.47 [CI, 1.72 to 3.55]). LIMITATION: The study was too small to assess the relationship of angiography with coronary death and did not assess the reasons why patients did not receive angiography.
CONCLUSION: Appropriateness scores offer prognostically valid criteria for judging which specific patients might benefit from coronary angiography. Patient-specific appropriateness scores help pinpoint areas where judgments diverge and are a promising tool for making guidelines more effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18711152     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-4-200808190-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  15 in total

1.  The underuse of overuse research.

Authors:  Salomeh Keyhani; Albert L Siu
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Appropriateness of referrals for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI) in a developing community: a comparison between 2005 and 2009 versions of ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria.

Authors:  Ali Gholamrezanezhad; Ahmadali Shirafkan; Sahar Mirpour; Mehdi Rayatnavaz; Azita Alborzi; Mehdi Mogharrabi; Sepideh Hassanpour; Mohammadali Ramezani
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Presentation of stable angina pectoris among women and South Asian people.

Authors:  M Justin Zaman; Cornelia Junghans; Neha Sekhri; Ruoling Chen; Gene S Feder; Adam D Timmis; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2008-09-23       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Diagnostic triage and the role of natriuretic peptide testing and echocardiography for suspected heart failure: an appropriateness ratings evaluation by UK GPs.

Authors:  Stephen M Campbell; Ahmet Fuat; Nick Summerton; Neil Lancaster; Fd Richard Hobbs
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 5.  Chronic coronary artery disease: diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Andrew Cassar; David R Holmes; Charanjit S Rihal; Bernard J Gersh
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 6.  Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world.

Authors:  Shannon Brownlee; Kalipso Chalkidou; Jenny Doust; Adam G Elshaug; Paul Glasziou; Iona Heath; Somil Nagpal; Vikas Saini; Divya Srivastava; Kelsey Chalmers; Deborah Korenstein
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Lessons learned in the development of process quality indicators for cancer care in Japan.

Authors:  Takahiro Higashi
Journal:  Biopsychosoc Med       Date:  2010-11-05

8.  Using decision trees for measuring gender equity in the timing of angiography in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a novel approach to equity analysis.

Authors:  Arlene S Bierman; Adalsteinn D Brown; Carey M Levinton
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2015-12-23

Review 9.  Evaluating the causal relevance of diverse risk markers: horizontal systematic review.

Authors:  Hannah Kuper; Amanda Nicholson; Mika Kivimaki; Amina Aitsi-Selmi; Gianpiero Cavalleri; John E Deanfield; Peter Heuschmann; Xavier Jouven; Sofia Malyutina; Bongani M Mayosi; Susanna Sans; Troels Thomsen; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Aroon D Hingorani; Debbie A Lawlor; Harry Hemingway
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-11-05

10.  Alcohol and drug use disorders among patients with myocardial infarction: associations with disparities in care and mortality.

Authors:  Cynthia A Beck; Danielle A Southern; Richard Saitz; Merril L Knudtson; William A Ghali
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.