BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization (DC) were recently published. These criteria are yet to be examined for a large population of patients undergoing DC. METHODS AND RESULTS: New York State's Cardiac Diagnostic Catheterization Database was used to identify patients undergoing DC for coronary artery disease between 2010 and 2011 for suspected coronary artery disease. Patients were rated by the appropriate use criteria as appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate for DC. The relationships between various patient characteristics and the appropriateness ratings were examined, along with the relationships between hospital-level inappropriateness, for DC and 2 other hospital-level variables (hospital DC volume and percutaneous coronary intervention inappropriateness). Of the 8986 patients who could be rated for appropriateness, 35.3% were rated as appropriate, 39.8% as uncertain, and 24.9% as inappropriate. Of the 2240 patients rated as inappropriate, 56.7% were asymptomatic/had no previous stress test/had low or intermediate global coronary artery disease risk, 36.0% had a previous stress test with low-risk findings and no symptoms, and 7.3% were symptomatic/had no previous stress test/had low pretest probability. The median hospital-level inappropriateness rate was 28.5%, with a maximum of 48.8% and a minimum of 8.6%. Hospital-level inappropriateness was not related to hospital volume or inappropriateness for percutaneous coronary intervention. CONCLUSIONS: One quarter of patients undergoing DC for suspected coronary artery disease were rated as inappropriate for the procedure, approximately two thirds of these inappropriate patients had no previous stress test, and ≈90% of inappropriate patients with no previous stress test were asymptomatic with low or intermediate global risk scores.
BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization (DC) were recently published. These criteria are yet to be examined for a large population of patients undergoing DC. METHODS AND RESULTS: New York State's Cardiac Diagnostic Catheterization Database was used to identify patients undergoing DC for coronary artery disease between 2010 and 2011 for suspected coronary artery disease. Patients were rated by the appropriate use criteria as appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate for DC. The relationships between various patient characteristics and the appropriateness ratings were examined, along with the relationships between hospital-level inappropriateness, for DC and 2 other hospital-level variables (hospital DC volume and percutaneous coronary intervention inappropriateness). Of the 8986 patients who could be rated for appropriateness, 35.3% were rated as appropriate, 39.8% as uncertain, and 24.9% as inappropriate. Of the 2240 patients rated as inappropriate, 56.7% were asymptomatic/had no previous stress test/had low or intermediate global coronary artery disease risk, 36.0% had a previous stress test with low-risk findings and no symptoms, and 7.3% were symptomatic/had no previous stress test/had low pretest probability. The median hospital-level inappropriateness rate was 28.5%, with a maximum of 48.8% and a minimum of 8.6%. Hospital-level inappropriateness was not related to hospital volume or inappropriateness for percutaneous coronary intervention. CONCLUSIONS: One quarter of patients undergoing DC for suspected coronary artery disease were rated as inappropriate for the procedure, approximately two thirds of these inappropriate patients had no previous stress test, and ≈90% of inappropriate patients with no previous stress test were asymptomatic with low or intermediate global risk scores.
Authors: Carrie H Colla; Philip P Goodney; Valerie A Lewis; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Daniel J Gottlieb; Ellen Meara Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Florence Francis-Oliviero; Pierre Coste; Emilie Lesaine; Corinne Perez; François Casteigt; Jean-Marie Clerc; Nicolas Delarche; Akil Hassan; Bernard Larnaudie; Jean-Louis Leymarie; Louis-Rachid Salmi; Florence Saillour-Glenisson Journal: Arch Public Health Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Jeffrey D Clough; Rahul Rajkumar; Matthew T Crim; Lesli S Ott; Nihar R Desai; Patrick H Conway; Sha Maresh; Daver C Kahvecioglu; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Luis Sérgio Carvalho Luciano; Roberto Léo da Silva; Ozir Miguel Londero Filho; Leandro Waldrich; Luciano Panata; Ana Paula Trombetta; Julio Cesar Preve; Tammuz Fattah; Luiz Carlos Giuliano; Luiz Eduardo Koenig São Thiago Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Daniel J Morgan; Shannon Brownlee; Aaron L Leppin; Nancy Kressin; Sanket S Dhruva; Les Levin; Bruce E Landon; Mark A Zezza; Harald Schmidt; Vikas Saini; Adam G Elshaug Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-08-25
Authors: Andrew Remfry; Howard Abrams; David M Dudzinski; Rory B Weiner; R Sacha Bhatia Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 2.062
Authors: David P Ripley; Julia M Brown; Colin C Everett; Petra Bijsterveld; Simon Walker; Mark Sculpher; Gerry P McCann; Colin Berry; Sven Plein; John P Greenwood Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 4.749