BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether patients understand that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces only chronic stable angina and not myocardial infarction (MI) or associated mortality. OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiologists' and patients' beliefs about PCI. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Academic center. PARTICIPANTS: 153 patients who consented to elective coronary catheterization and possible PCI, 10 interventional cardiologists, and 17 referring cardiologists. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' and cardiologists' beliefs about benefits of PCI. All cardiologists reported beliefs about PCI for patients in hypothetical scenarios. Interventional cardiologists also reported beliefs for study patients who underwent PCI. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, 68% had any angina, 42% had activity-limiting angina, 77% had a positive stress test result, and 29% had had previous MI. The 53 patients who underwent PCI were more likely than those who did not to have a positive stress test result, but angina was similar in both groups. Almost three quarters of patients thought that without PCI, they would probably have MI within 5 years, and 88% believed that PCI would reduce risk for MI. Patients were more likely than physicians to believe that PCI would prevent MI (prevalence ratio, 4.25 [95% CI, 2.31 to 7.79]) or fatal MI (prevalence ratio, 4.83 [CI, 2.23 to 10.46]). Patients were less likely than their physicians to report pre-PCI angina (prevalence ratio, 0.79 [CI, 0.67 to 0.92]). For the scenarios, 63% of cardiologists believed that the benefits of PCI were limited to symptom relief. Of cardiologists who identified no benefit of PCI in 2 scenarios, 43% indicated that they would still proceed with PCI in these cases. LIMITATION: The study was small and conducted at 1 center, and information about precatheterization counseling was limited. CONCLUSION: Cardiologists' beliefs about PCI reflect trial results, but patients' beliefs do not. Discussions with patients before PCI should better explain anticipated benefits. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether patients understand that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces only chronic stable angina and not myocardial infarction (MI) or associated mortality. OBJECTIVE: To compare cardiologists' and patients' beliefs about PCI. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: Academic center. PARTICIPANTS: 153 patients who consented to elective coronary catheterization and possible PCI, 10 interventional cardiologists, and 17 referring cardiologists. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' and cardiologists' beliefs about benefits of PCI. All cardiologists reported beliefs about PCI for patients in hypothetical scenarios. Interventional cardiologists also reported beliefs for study patients who underwent PCI. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, 68% had any angina, 42% had activity-limiting angina, 77% had a positive stress test result, and 29% had had previous MI. The 53 patients who underwent PCI were more likely than those who did not to have a positive stress test result, but angina was similar in both groups. Almost three quarters of patients thought that without PCI, they would probably have MI within 5 years, and 88% believed that PCI would reduce risk for MI. Patients were more likely than physicians to believe that PCI would prevent MI (prevalence ratio, 4.25 [95% CI, 2.31 to 7.79]) or fatal MI (prevalence ratio, 4.83 [CI, 2.23 to 10.46]). Patients were less likely than their physicians to report pre-PCI angina (prevalence ratio, 0.79 [CI, 0.67 to 0.92]). For the scenarios, 63% of cardiologists believed that the benefits of PCI were limited to symptom relief. Of cardiologists who identified no benefit of PCI in 2 scenarios, 43% indicated that they would still proceed with PCI in these cases. LIMITATION: The study was small and conducted at 1 center, and information about precatheterization counseling was limited. CONCLUSION: Cardiologists' beliefs about PCI reflect trial results, but patients' beliefs do not. Discussions with patients before PCI should better explain anticipated benefits. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Authors: Steven M Bradley; John A Spertus; Kevin F Kennedy; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Paul S Chan; Manesh R Patel; Chris L Bryson; David J Malenka; John S Rumsfeld Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Paul S Chan; Manesh R Patel; Lloyd W Klein; Ronald J Krone; Gregory J Dehmer; Kevin Kennedy; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; W Douglas Weaver; Frederick A Masoudi; John S Rumsfeld; Ralph G Brindis; John A Spertus Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Naykky Singh Ospina; Ana Castaneda-Guarderas; Russell Ward; Juan P Brito; Spyridoula Maraka; Claudia Zeballos Palacios; Kathleen J Yost; Diana S Dean; Victor M Montori Journal: Endocrine Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Gregg W Stone; Judith S Hochman; David O Williams; William E Boden; T Bruce Ferguson; Robert A Harrington; David J Maron Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 24.094