American heart journal · 2014
Appropriateness of coronary interventions in Japan by the US and Japanese standards.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Inohara Taku, Kohsaka Shun, Miyata Hiroaki, Ueda Ikuko, Noma Shigetaka, Suzuki Masahiro, Negishi Koji, Endo Ayaka, Nishi Yutaro, Hayashida Kentaro, Maekawa Yuichiro, Kawamura Akio, Higashi Takahiro, Fukuda Keiichi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Appropriateness use criteria (AUC) are widely used to assess quality of care. American professional organizations and Japanese experts have both developed original AUC for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, rating discrepancies have not been investigated.
METHODS: Patients registered in the Japanese multicenter PCI registry were analyzed. We assessed the appropriateness of PCI based on both the US and Japanese criteria and compared the ratings. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors of inappropriate ratings under both standards.
RESULTS: From a total of 4,950 nonacute, consecutive PCIs, 1,982 and 2,077 procedures could be successfully rated using the US and Japanese criteria, respectively. The major difference between the 2 criteria was the rating of "asymptomatic, low- or intermediate-risk patients, no lesion in the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (PLAD)"; this scenario was deemed appropriate in the Japanese but not in the US criteria. As a consequence, the rate of inappropriate PCI using the Japanese criteria (5.2%) was substantially lower when compared with the rating using the US criteria (15%). Common clinical variables associated with "inappropriate" PCI were male, multivessel diseases, and lesions in the non-PLAD. Suboptimal antianginal medication was also a significant predictor of inappropriate PCI under the US but not under the Japanese criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant and clinically relevant rating discrepancies were observed between the US and Japanese criteria-based assessments, owing largely to the ratings of asymptomatic, non-PLAD-related, low- or intermediate-risk cases.
METHODS: Patients registered in the Japanese multicenter PCI registry were analyzed. We assessed the appropriateness of PCI based on both the US and Japanese criteria and compared the ratings. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors of inappropriate ratings under both standards.
RESULTS: From a total of 4,950 nonacute, consecutive PCIs, 1,982 and 2,077 procedures could be successfully rated using the US and Japanese criteria, respectively. The major difference between the 2 criteria was the rating of "asymptomatic, low- or intermediate-risk patients, no lesion in the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (PLAD)"; this scenario was deemed appropriate in the Japanese but not in the US criteria. As a consequence, the rate of inappropriate PCI using the Japanese criteria (5.2%) was substantially lower when compared with the rating using the US criteria (15%). Common clinical variables associated with "inappropriate" PCI were male, multivessel diseases, and lesions in the non-PLAD. Suboptimal antianginal medication was also a significant predictor of inappropriate PCI under the US but not under the Japanese criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant and clinically relevant rating discrepancies were observed between the US and Japanese criteria-based assessments, owing largely to the ratings of asymptomatic, non-PLAD-related, low- or intermediate-risk cases.