AIMS: Almost a third of outpatients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) report having angina in the prior month, which is frequently under-recognized by their cardiologists. Whether under-recognition is associated with less treatment escalation to control angina, and potential underuse of treatment, is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with CAD from 25 US cardiology outpatient practices completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) prior to their clinic visit, and angina was categorized as daily, weekly, monthly and no angina. Cardiologists (n=155) independently quantified patients' angina, blinded to patients' SAQ scores. Under-recognition was defined as the physician reporting a lower category of angina frequency than the patient. Among 1257 patients with CAD, 411 reported angina in the past month, of whom 178 (43.3%) patients were under-recognized. Treatment escalation-defined as intensification (up-titration or addition) of antianginal medications, referral for diagnostic testing or revascularization, or hospital admission-occurred in 106 (25.8%) patients with angina. Patients with under-recognized angina were less likely to get treatment escalation than patients whose angina was appropriately recognized (8.4% vs 39.1%, P<0.001). In a hierarchical multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the burden of angina, under-recognition remained strongly associated with a lack of treatment escalation (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.21, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Under-recognition of angina in cardiology outpatient practices is associated with less aggressive treatment escalation and may lead to poorer angina control. Standardizing clinical recognition of angina using validated tools could reduce under-recognition of angina, facilitate treatment, and potentially improve outcomes.
AIMS: Almost a third of outpatients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) report having angina in the prior month, which is frequently under-recognized by their cardiologists. Whether under-recognition is associated with less treatment escalation to control angina, and potential underuse of treatment, is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients with CAD from 25 US cardiology outpatient practices completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) prior to their clinic visit, and angina was categorized as daily, weekly, monthly and no angina. Cardiologists (n=155) independently quantified patients' angina, blinded to patients' SAQ scores. Under-recognition was defined as the physician reporting a lower category of angina frequency than the patient. Among 1257 patients with CAD, 411 reported angina in the past month, of whom 178 (43.3%) patients were under-recognized. Treatment escalation-defined as intensification (up-titration or addition) of antianginal medications, referral for diagnostic testing or revascularization, or hospital admission-occurred in 106 (25.8%) patients with angina. Patients with under-recognized angina were less likely to get treatment escalation than patients whose angina was appropriately recognized (8.4% vs 39.1%, P<0.001). In a hierarchical multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the burden of angina, under-recognition remained strongly associated with a lack of treatment escalation (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.21, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Under-recognition of angina in cardiology outpatient practices is associated with less aggressive treatment escalation and may lead to poorer angina control. Standardizing clinical recognition of angina using validated tools could reduce under-recognition of angina, facilitate treatment, and potentially improve outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
angina; antianginal medications; coronary artery disease; quality of care
Authors: Ralph G Brindis; Pamela S Douglas; Robert C Hendel; Eric D Peterson; Michael J Wolk; Joseph M Allen; Manesh R Patel; Ira E Raskin; Robert C Hendel; Timothy M Bateman; Manuel D Cerqueira; Raymond J Gibbons; Linda D Gillam; John A Gillespie; Robert C Hendel; Ami E Iskandrian; Scott D Jerome; Harlan M Krumholz; Joseph V Messer; John A Spertus; Stephen A Stowers Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-10-18 Impact factor: 24.094
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: Suzanne V Arnold; Mikhail Kosiborod; Darren K McGuire; Yan Li; Patrick Yue; Ori Ben-Yehuda; John A Spertus Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Stefan Verheye; E Marc Jolicœur; Miles W Behan; Thomas Pettersson; Paul Sainsbury; Jonathan Hill; Mathias Vrolix; Pierfrancesco Agostoni; Thomas Engstrom; Marino Labinaz; Ranil de Silva; Marc Schwartz; Nathalie Meyten; Neal G Uren; Serge Doucet; Jean-François Tanguay; Steven Lindsay; Timothy D Henry; Christopher J White; Elazer R Edelman; Shmuel Banai Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William S Weintraub; John A Spertus; Paul Kolm; David J Maron; Zefeng Zhang; Claudine Jurkovitz; Wei Zhang; Pamela M Hartigan; Cheryl Lewis; Emir Veledar; Jim Bowen; Sandra B Dunbar; Christi Deaton; Stanley Kaufman; Robert A O'Rourke; Ron Goeree; Paul G Barnett; Koon K Teo; William E Boden; G B J Mancini Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-08-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jesse Xiaolong Yang; Margaret J Stevenson; Linda Valsdottir; Kalon Ho; John A Spertus; Robert W Yeh; Jordan B Strom Journal: Heart Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 5.994