Angiographic validation of the american college of cardiology foundation-the society of thoracic surgeons collaboration on the comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies study

Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 11-18

  Chakrabarti, Anjan K ^a,b   Grau Sepulveda, Maria V ^c   O'Brien, Sean ^c   Abueg, Cassandra ^b   Ponirakis, Angelo ^d   Delong, Elizabeth ^c   Peterson, Eric ^c   Klein, Lloyd W ^e   Garratt, Kirk N ^f   Weintraub, William S ^g   Gibson, C Michael ^a,b  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY   (United States)

^e RUSH MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^f LENOX HILL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^g CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Angiography; Catheterization; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Program evaluation

Indexed keywords

AGED; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORE LABORATORY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FEMALE; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGHT CORONARY ARTERY; THORAX SURGERY; VERY ELDERLY;

ANGIOGRAPHY; CATHETERIZATION; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PROGRAM EVALUATION;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANGIOGRAPHY; CARDIOLOGY; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; FOUNDATIONS; HOSPITALS, COMMUNITY; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; MALE; MYOCARDIAL REVASCULARIZATION; REGISTRIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; THORACIC SURGERY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84900450142     PISSN: 19417640     EISSN: 19417632     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.113.000679     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Chan PS, Patel MR, Klein LW, Krone RJ, Dehmer GJ, Kennedy K, Nallamothu BK, Weaver WD, Masoudi FA, Rumsfeld JS, Brindis RG, Spertus JA. Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2011;306:53-61.
2. Costa RA, Reiber JH. QCA editorial. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;27:155-156.
3. Brener SJ, Haq SA, Bose S, Sacchi TJ. Three-year survival after percutaneous coronary intervention according to appropriateness criteria for revascularization. J Invasive Cardiol. 2009;21:554-557.
4. Stone GW, Moses JW. Interventional cardiology: how should the appropriateness of PCI be judged? Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8:544-546.
5. Bradley SM, Chan PS, Spertus JA, Kennedy KF, Douglas PS, Patel MR, Anderson HV, Ting HH, Rumsfeld JS, Nallamothu BK. Hospital percutaneous coronary intervention appropriateness and in-hospital procedural outcomes: insights from the NCDR. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:290-297.
6. Marso SP, Teirstein PS, Kereiakes DJ, Moses J, Lasala J, Grantham JA. Percutaneous coronary intervention use in the United States: defining measures of appropriateness. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5: 229-235.
7. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, Stahle E, Feldman TE, van den Brand M, Bass EJ, Van Dyck N, Leadley K, Dawkins KD, Mohr FW; SYNTAX Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961-972.
8. Ng VG, Lansky AJ. Novel QCA methodologies and angiographic scores. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;27:157-165.
9. Tanboga IH, Ekinci M, Isik T, Kurt M, Kaya A, Sevimli S. Reproducibility of syntax score: from core lab to real world. J Interv Cardiol. 2011;24:302-306.
10. Weintraub WS, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Weiss JM, O'Brien SM, Peterson ED, Kolm P, Zhang Z, Klein LW, Shaw RE, McKay C, Ritzenthaler LL, Popma JJ, Messenger JC, Shahian DM, Grover FL, Mayer JE, Shewan CM, Garratt KN, Moussa ID, Dangas GD, Edwards FH. Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1467-1476.
11. Klein LW, Edwards FH, DeLong ER, Ritzenthaler L, Dangas GD, Weintraub WS. ASCERT: the American College of Cardiology Foundation-the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Collaboration on the comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:124-126.
12. Weintraub WS, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Weiss JM, Delong ER, Peterson ED, O'Brien SM, Kolm P, Klein LW, Shaw RE, McKay C, Ritzenthaler LL, Popma JJ, Messenger JC, Shahian DM, Grover FL, Mayer JE, Garratt KN, Moussa ID, Edwards FH, Dangas GD. Prediction of longterm mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention in older adults: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation. 2012;125:1501-1510.
13. Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Sheng S, Grover FL, Mayer JE, Jacobs JP, Weiss JM, Delong ER, Peterson ED, Weintraub WS, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Klein LW, Shaw RE, Garratt KN, Moussa ID, Shewan CM, Dangas GD, Edwards FH. Predictors of long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (the ASCERT study). Circulation. 2012;125:1491-1500.
14. Brennan JM, Dai D, Patel MR, Rao SV, Armstrong EJ, Messenger JC, Curtis JP, Shunk KA, Anstrom KJ, Eisenstein EL, Weintraub WS, Peterson ED, Douglas PS, Hillegass WB. Characteristics and longterm outcomes of percutaneous revascularization of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis in the United States: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2004 to 2008. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:648-654.
15. Huang HW, Brent BN, Shaw RE. Trends in percutaneous versus surgical revascularization of unprotected left main coronary stenosis in the drug-eluting stent era: a report from the American College of Cardiology- National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:867-872.
16. Teirstein PS. Percutaneous revascularization is the preferred strategy for patients with significant left main coronary stenosis. Circulation. 2009;119:1021-1033.
17. Zir LM, Miller SW, Dinsmore RE, Gilbert JP, Harthorne JW. Interobserver variability in coronary angiography. Circulation. 1976;53:627-632.
18. Farooq V, Brugaletta S, Serruys PW. Contemporary and evolving risk scoring algorithms for percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart. 2011;97:1902-1913.
19. Hermiller JB, Cusma JT, Spero LA, Fortin DF, Harding MB, Bashore TM. Quantitative and qualitative coronary angiographic analysis: review of methods, utility, and limitations. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1992;25:110-131.
20. Nallamothu BK, Spertus JA, Lansky AJ, Cohen DJ, Jones PG, Kureshi F, Dehmer GJ, Drozda JP Jr., Walsh MN, Brush JE Jr., Koenig GC, Waites TF, Gantt DS, Kichura G, Chazal RA, O'Brien PK, Valentine CM, Rumsfeld JS, Reiber JH, Elmore JG, Krumholz RA, Weaver WD, Krumholz HM. Comparison of clinical interpretation with visual assessment and quantitative coronary angiography in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice: the Assessing Angiography (A2) project. Circulation. 2013;127:1793-1800.
21. Detre KM, Wright E, Murphy ML, Takaro T. Observer agreement in evaluating coronary angiograms. Circulation. 1975;52:979-986.
22. Trask N, Califf RM, Conley MJ, Kong Y, Peter R, Lee KL, Hackel DB, Wagner GS. Accuracy and interobserver variability of coronary cineangiography: a comparison with postmortem evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984;3:1145-1154.