Patients' and Cardiologists' Perceptions of the Benefits of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Coronary Disease
- 7 September 2010
- journal article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 153 (5) , 307-313
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-5-201009070-00005
Abstract
It is unclear whether patients understand that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces only chronic stable angina and not myocardial infarction (MI) or associated mortality. To compare cardiologists' and patients' beliefs about PCI. Survey. Academic center. 153 patients who consented to elective coronary catheterization and possible PCI, 10 interventional cardiologists, and 17 referring cardiologists. 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. 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. The study was small and conducted at 1 center, and information about precatheterization counseling was limited. Cardiologists' beliefs about PCI reflect trial results, but patients' beliefs do not. Discussions with patients before PCI should better explain anticipated benefits. None.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Why Physicians Favor Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to Medical Therapy: A Focus Group StudyJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2008
- How Do Patients Perceive the Benefits and Risks of Peripheral Angioplasty? Implications for Informed ConsentJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 2008
- Patient perceptions of the risks and benefits of infliximab for the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseaseInflammatory Bowel Diseases, 2008
- Understanding of the benefits of coronary revascularization procedures among patients who are offered such proceduresAmerican Heart Journal, 2007
- Cardiologists' Use of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Stable Coronary Artery DiseaseArchives of internal medicine (1960), 2007
- Outcomes Following Immediate (Ad Hoc) Versus Staged Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (Report from the 2000 to 2001 New York State Angioplasty Registry)The American Journal of Cardiology, 2007
- Ad Hoc percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with stable coronary artery disease—A study of prevalence, safety, and variation in use from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC‐NCDR®)Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2006
- Safety, Efficacy, and Cost Advantages of Combined Coronary Angiography and AngioplastyJournal of Interventional Cardiology, 2003
- Outcome of Elderly Patients With Chronic Symptomatic Coronary Artery Disease With an Invasive vs Optimized Medical Treatment StrategyJAMA, 2003
- Ad hoc coronary interventionCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2000