Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2012
Assessing the association of appropriateness of coronary revascularization and clinical outcomes for patients with stable coronary artery disease.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Ko Dennis T, Guo Helen, Wijeysundera Harindra C, Natarajan Madhu K, Nagpal A Dave, Feindel Christopher M, Kingsbury Kori, Cohen Eric A, Tu Jack V, Cardiac Care Network (CCN) of Ontario Variations in Revascularization Practice in Ontario (VRPO) Working Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The study assessed the appropriateness of coronary revascularization in Ontario, Canada, and examined its association with longer-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Although appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization have been developed to improve the rational use of cardiac invasive procedures, it is unknown whether greater adherence to appropriateness guidelines is associated with improved clinical outcomes in stable coronary artery disease.
METHODS: A population-based cohort of stable patients undergoing cardiac catheterization was assembled from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. The appropriateness for coronary revascularization at the time of coronary angiography was retrospectively adjudicated using the appropriate use criteria. Clinical outcomes between coronary revascularization and medical treatment without revascularization, stratified by appropriateness categories, were compared.
RESULTS: In 1,625 patients with stable coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting was only performed in 69% who had an appropriate indication for coronary revascularization. Coronary revascularization was associated with a lower adjusted hazard of death or acute coronary syndrome (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 0.88) at 3 years compared with medical therapy in appropriate patients. The rate of coronary revascularization was 54% in the uncertain category and 45% in the inappropriate category. No significant difference in death or acute coronary syndrome between coronary revascularization and no revascularization in the uncertain category (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.16) and the inappropriate category (HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.48 to 2.02) was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Using the appropriateness use criteria, we identified substantial underutilization and overutilization of coronary revascularization in contemporary clinical practice. Underutilization of coronary revascularization is associated with significantly increased risks of adverse outcomes in patients with appropriate indications.
BACKGROUND: Although appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization have been developed to improve the rational use of cardiac invasive procedures, it is unknown whether greater adherence to appropriateness guidelines is associated with improved clinical outcomes in stable coronary artery disease.
METHODS: A population-based cohort of stable patients undergoing cardiac catheterization was assembled from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2007. The appropriateness for coronary revascularization at the time of coronary angiography was retrospectively adjudicated using the appropriate use criteria. Clinical outcomes between coronary revascularization and medical treatment without revascularization, stratified by appropriateness categories, were compared.
RESULTS: In 1,625 patients with stable coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting was only performed in 69% who had an appropriate indication for coronary revascularization. Coronary revascularization was associated with a lower adjusted hazard of death or acute coronary syndrome (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 0.88) at 3 years compared with medical therapy in appropriate patients. The rate of coronary revascularization was 54% in the uncertain category and 45% in the inappropriate category. No significant difference in death or acute coronary syndrome between coronary revascularization and no revascularization in the uncertain category (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.16) and the inappropriate category (HR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.48 to 2.02) was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Using the appropriateness use criteria, we identified substantial underutilization and overutilization of coronary revascularization in contemporary clinical practice. Underutilization of coronary revascularization is associated with significantly increased risks of adverse outcomes in patients with appropriate indications.