Assessment of indications in interventional cardiology: Appropriateness and necessity of coronary angiography and revascularization

American Journal of Medical Quality

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 155-163

  Schilling, Julian ^a   Gerstl, Peter ^b,c   Kapetanios, Epaminondas ^d   Lee, Chung Yol ^a,e   Bertel, Osmund ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b TRIEMLI HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

^c Wetzikon Hospital   (Switzerland)

^d ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^e FEDERAL OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Appropriateness; Interventional cardiology; Quality

Indexed keywords

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; ADULT; AGED; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CARDIOLOGY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY RECANALIZATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERCUTANEOUS TRANSLUMINAL ANGIOPLASTY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURGEON; TREATMENT INDICATION; VALIDATION PROCESS; MEDICAL ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICS; SWITZERLAND; TRANSLUMINAL CORONARY ANGIOPLASTY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANGIOPLASTY, TRANSLUMINAL, PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS; ETHICS, MEDICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SWITZERLAND;

EID: 0041419686     PISSN: 10628606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/106286060301800405     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Schilling J. Qualitätssicherung in der Medizin: Methodik zur Indikationsforschung in der interventionellen Kardiologie und in der Gynäkologie (Quality Assurance in Medicine: Methodology for Research on Indications in Interventional Cardiology and Gynaecology). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: pmi Verlagsgruppe GmbH; 1998.
2. Ryan T, Faxon D, Gunnar R, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). Circulation. 1988;78:486-502.
3. Ziskind A, Lauer M, Bishop G, et al. Assessing the appropriateness of coronary revascularization: the University of Maryland Revascularization Appropriateness Score (RAS) and its comparison to RAND expert panel ratings and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines with regard to assigned appropriateness rating and ability to predict outcome. Clin Cardiol. 1999;22:67-76.
4. Lauer M, Ziskind A, Lemmon C, et al. Prospective assessment of revascularisation appropriateness scoring systems: a comparison of RAND expert panel ratings, ACC/AAHA guidelines, and the University of Maryland revascularisation appropriateness score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25(2)(supplement 1):344A.
5. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44:166-206.
6. Haller U, Wyss P, Schilling J, et al. Quality assessment in gynecology and obstetrics projects and experience in Switzerland. Obstet Gynecol. 1998.
7. Swiss Society of Cardiology. Results of a Swiss Consensus Conference on Coronary Angiography. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1997;127(27/28):1179-1190.
8. Swiss Society of Cardiology. Results of a Swiss Consensus Conference on Coronary Revascularization. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1997;127(27/28):1191-1210.
9. Gonvers JJ, Burnand B, Froehlich F, et al. Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit. Endoscopy. 1996;28(8):661-666.
10. Fröhlich F, Pache I, Burnand B, et al. Underutilization of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(3):690-697.
11. Fröhlich F, Burnand B, Pache I, et al. Overuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a country with open-access endoscopy: a prospective study in primary care. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45(1):13-19.
12. Parsonnet VM, Dean D. A method of uniform stratification of risk for evaluating the results of surgery in acquired adult heart disease. Circulation. 1989;79(suppl 1):3-12.
13. Selby JV, Fireman BH, Lundstrom RJ, et al. Variation among hospitals in coronary-angiography practices and outcomes after myocardial infarction in a large health maintenance organization. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(25):1888-1896.
14. Ayanian J, Landrum MB, Normand S. Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography - do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other? N Engl J Med. 1998;338(26): 1896-1904.
15. Kahan JP, Park RE, Leape LL, et al. Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures. Med. Care. 1996;34(6):512-523.
16. Velianou JL, Wilson SH, Reeder GS, et al. Decreasing mortality with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the Mayo Clinic experience from 1991 through 1997. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000;75(10):994-1001.
17. Suryapranata H, Ottervanger JP, Nibbering E, et al. Long term outcome and cost-effectiveness of stenting versus balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Heart. 2001;85(6):667-671.
18. Zijlstra F, Hoorntje J, de Boer M, et al. Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction (see comments). N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1413-1419.
19. Grines CL, Cox SA, Stone GW, et al. Coronary angioplasty with or without stent implantation for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(26):1949-1956.
20. Rankin JM, Spinelli JJ, Carere RG, et al. Improved clinical outcome after widespread use of coronary-artery stenting in Canada. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(26):1957-1965.
21. Leape LL, Park RE, Bashore TM, et al. Effect of variability in the interpretation of coronary angiograms on the appropriateness of use of coronary revascularization procedures. Am Heart J. 2000;139(1 Pt 1):106-113.
22. Feder G, Crook AM, Magee P, et al. Ethnic differences in invasive management of coronary disease: prospective cohort study of patients undergoing angiography. BMJ. 2002;324(7336):511-516.
23. Bengtson A, Herlitz JM. The appropriateness of performing coronary angiography and coronary artery revascularization in a Swedish population. JAMA. 1994;271(16):1260-1265.
24. Bernstein S, Brorsson B, Aberg T, et al. Appropriateness of referral of coronary angiography patients in Sweden. SECOR/SBU Project Group. Heart. 1999;81:470-477.
25. Valagussa F, Maggioni A, Valagussa L, et al. Appropriateness of indicating aortocoronary bypass and coronary angioplasty: results of an observational prospective study in the Lombardy region. (Gruppo Interdisciplinare Valutazione Appropriatezza Rivascolarizzazione Coronarica). G Ital Cardiol. 1997;27:1264-1270.
26. Winslow C, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, et al. The appropriateness of performing coronary artery bypass surgery. JAMA. 1988;260(4): 505-509.
27. Hilborne L, Leape L, Bernsteiu S, et al. The appropriateness of use of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in New York State. JAMA. 1993;269:761-765.
28. Bernstein S, Hilborne L, Leape Lea. The appropriateness of use of coronary angiography in New York State. JAMA. 1993;269(6): 766-769.
29. Kadel C. Evaluation of indications for PTCA (Die Bewertung von Indikationen zur PTCA). Herz. 1996;21(6):347-358.
30. Kadel C, Burger W, Klepzig H. Quality assurance in invasive cardiology. A prospective study for the evaluation of indications for coronary angiography and coronary dilatation using the Rand Corporation method (Qualitätssicherung in der invasiven Kardiologie). Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1996;121(15):465-471.
31. Leape LL, Hilborne LH, Park RE, et al. The appropriateness of use of coronary artery bypass graft in surgery in New York State. JAMA. 1993;269(6):753-760.
32. McGlynn EA, Naylor CD, Anderson GM, et al. Comparison of the appropriateness of coronary angiography and coronary artery bypass graft surgery between Canada and New York State. JAMA. 1994;272(12):934-940.
33. Naylor CD, McGlynn EA, Leape LL, et al. Coronary angiography and revascularization: defining procedural indications through formal group processes. The Canadian Revascularization Panel, the Canadian Coronary Angiography Panel. Can J Cardiol. 1994;10(1):41-48.
34. Landrum MB, McNeil BJ, Silva L, et al. Understanding variability in physician ratings of the appropriateness of coronary angiography after acute myocardial infarction. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(4):309-319.
35. Shekelle PG, Kahan JP, Bernstein SJ, et al. The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(26):1888-1895.
36. Phelps CS. The methodologic foundations of studies of the appropriateness of medical care. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(17): 1241-1245.
37. Landrum MB, Normand SL. Applying Bayesian ideas to the development of medical guidelines. Stat Med. 1999;18(2):117-137.
38. Kapetanios E. A semantically advanced querying methodology for medical knowledge and decision support. In: Gruetter R, ed. Knowledge Media in Healthcare: Opportunities and Challenges. London: IDEA Group Publishers; 2001.
39. Shekelle PG. Are appropriateness criteria ready for use in clinical practice? N Engl J Med. 2001;344(9):677-678.
40. Eicher E. Guideline für Guidelines. Schweiz Ärztezeitung. 1999;80(10):581-583.