Appropriateness of referral of coronary angiography patients in Sweden

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.

[1]  J P Kahan,et al.  The reproducibility of a method to identify the overuse and underuse of medical procedures. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  D. Carrié,et al.  Five-year outcome after coronary angioplasty versus bypass surgery in multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the French Monocentric Study. , 1997, Circulation.

[3]  A. P. Meijler,et al.  Waiting for coronary revascularization: a comparison between New York State, The Netherlands and Sweden. , 1997, Health policy.

[4]  A. P. Meijler,et al.  Indications for coronary revascularisation: a Dutch perspective. , 1997, Heart.

[5]  James T. Willerson,et al.  Appointment of New Associate Editor for Circulation , 1996 .

[6]  Robert L. Frye,et al.  Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  F. Pileggi,et al.  The Medicine, Angioplasty or Surgery Study (MASS): a prospective, randomized trial of medical therapy, balloon angioplasty or bypass surgery for single proximal left anterior descending artery stenoses. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  CABRI Trial Participants,et al.  First-year results of CABRI (Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularisation Investigation) , 1995, The Lancet.

[9]  R. Kravitz,et al.  Validity of criteria used for detecting underuse of coronary revascularization. , 1995, JAMA.

[10]  M. Kutner,et al.  A Randomized Trial Comparing Coronary Angioplasty with Coronary Bypass Surgery , 1994 .

[11]  C. Hamm,et al.  A randomized study of coronary angioplasty compared with bypass surgery in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease. German Angioplasty Bypass Surgery Investigation (GABI) , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  B. Burnand,et al.  Coronary angioplasty versus left internal mammary artery grafting for isolated proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis , 1994, The Lancet.

[13]  A. Bengtson,et al.  The appropriateness of performing coronary angiography and coronary artery revascularization in a Swedish population. , 1994, JAMA.

[14]  L. Leape,et al.  Measuring the Necessity of Medical Procedures , 1994, Medical care.

[15]  L. Leape,et al.  Coronary angiography and revascularization: defining procedural indications through formal group processes. The Canadian Revascularization Panel, the Canadian Coronary Angiography Panel. , 1994, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[16]  I. Palacios,et al.  Argentine randomized trial of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery in multivessel disease (ERACI): in-hospital results and 1-year follow-up. ERACI Group. , 1993, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  Joy,et al.  Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial. , 1993, Lancet.

[18]  RITA-2 trial participants.  Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial , 1993, The Lancet.

[19]  L. Leape,et al.  The appropriateness of use of coronary artery bypass graft surgery in New York State. , 1993, JAMA.

[20]  L. Leape,et al.  The appropriateness of use of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in New York State. , 1993, JAMA.

[21]  R. Popp,et al.  Accuracy and reproducibility of visual coronary stenosis estimates using information from multiple observers , 1992, Clinical cardiology.

[22]  James P. Kahan,et al.  Coronary Artery Bypass Graft: A Literature Review and Ratings of Appropriateness and Necessity , 1991 .

[23]  E. Varnauskas.  Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized European Coronary Surgery Study. , 1988, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  K. Kahn,et al.  Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. , 1986, American journal of public health.

[25]  Cass Principal Investigators and Their Associates.  Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): A randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery , 1984 .

[26]  Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery for stable angina. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  Lippincott Williams Wilkins,et al.  Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival data. , 1983, Circulation.

[28]  L D Fisher,et al.  Reproducibility of coronary arteriographic reading in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS). , 1982, Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis.

[29]  T. Takaro,et al.  Observer Agreement in Evaluating Coronary Angiograms , 1975, Circulation.