Appropriateness of referral of coronary angiography patients in Sweden
Open Access
- 1 May 1999
- Vol. 81 (5) , 470-477
- https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.81.5.470
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the appropriateness of referral following coronary angiography in Sweden. DESIGN Prospective survey and review of medical records. PATIENTS Consecutive series of 2767 patients who underwent coronary angiography in Sweden between May 1994 and January 1995 and were considered for coronary revascularisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Percentage of patients referred for coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) for indications that were judged necessary, appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate by a multispecialty Swedish national expert panel using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) appropriateness method, and the percentage of patients referred for continued medical management who met necessity criteria for revascularisation. RESULTS Half the patients were referred for CABG, 25% for PTCA, and 25% for continued medical therapy. CABG was judged appropriate or necessary for 78% of patients, uncertain for 12% and inappropriate for 10%. For PTCA the figures were 32%, 30% and 38%, respectively. Two factors contributed to the high inappropriate rate. Many of these patients did not have “significant” coronary artery disease (although all had at least one stenosis > 50%) or they were treated with less than “optimal” medical therapy. While 96% of patients who met necessity criteria for revascularisation were appropriately referred for revascularisation, 4% were referred for continued medical therapy. CONCLUSIONS Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method and the definitions agreed to by the expert panel, which may be considered conservative today, it was found that 19% of Swedish patients were referred for coronary revascularisation judged inappropriate. Since some cardiovascular procedures evolve rapidly, the proportion of patients referred for inappropriate indications today remains unknown. Nevertheless, physicians should actively identify those patients who will and will not benefit from coronary revascularisation and ensure that they are appropriately treated.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Randomized Trial Comparing Coronary Angioplasty with Coronary Bypass SurgeryNew England Journal of Medicine, 1994
- Coronary angioplasty versus left internal mammary artery grafting for isolated proximal left anterior descending artery stenosisThe Lancet, 1994
- Measuring the Necessity of Medical ProceduresMedical Care, 1994
- Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trialThe Lancet, 1993
- Accuracy and reproducibility of visual coronary stenosis estimates using information from multiple observersClinical Cardiology, 1992
- Twelve-Year Follow-up of Survival in the Randomized European Coronary Surgery StudyNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988
- Eleven-Year Survival in the Veterans Administration Randomized Trial of Coronary Bypass Surgery for Stable AnginaNew England Journal of Medicine, 1984
- Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival data.Circulation, 1983
- Reproducibility of coronary arteriographic reading in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS)Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis, 1982
- Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms.Circulation, 1975