APpropriAteness of percutaneous Coronary interventions in patients with ischaemic HEart disease in Italy: the APACHE pilot study

Objectives To first explore in Italy appropriateness of indication, adherence to guideline recommendations and mode of selection for coronary revascularisation. Design Retrospective, pilot study. Setting 22 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-performing hospitals (20 patients per site), 13 (59%) with on-site cardiac surgery. Participants 440 patients who received PCI for stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome were independently selected in a 4:1 ratio with half diabetics. Primary and secondary outcome measures Proportion of patients who received appropriate PCI using validated appropriate use scores (ie, AUS≥7). Also, in patients with stable CAD, we examined adherence to the following European Society of Cardiology recommendations: (A) per cent of patients with complex coronary anatomy treated after heart team discussion; (B) per cent of fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for borderline stenoses in patients without documented ischaemia; (C) per cent of patients receiving guideline-directed medical therapy at the time of PCI as well as use of provocative test of ischaemia according to pretest probability (PTP) of CAD. Results Of the 401 mappable PCIs (91%), 38.7% (95% CI 33.9 to 43.6) were classified as appropriate, 47.6% (95% CI 42.7 to 52.6) as uncertain and 13.7% (95% CI 10.5% to 17.5%) as inappropriate. Median PTP in patients with stable CAD without known coronary anatomy was 69% (78% intermediate PTP, 22% high PTP). Ischaemia testing use was similar (p=0.71) in patients with intermediate (n=140, 63%) and with high PTP (n=40, 66%). In patients with stable CAD (n=352) guideline adherence to the three recommendations explored was: (A) 11%; (B) 25%; (C) 23%. AUS was higher in patients evaluated by the heart team as compared with patients who were not (7 (6.8) vs 5 (4.7); p=0.001). Conclusions Use of heart team approaches and adherence to guideline recommendations on coronary revascularisation in a real-world setting is limited. This pilot study documents the feasibility of measuring appropriateness and guideline adherence in clinical practice and identifies substantial opportunities for quality improvement. Trial registration number NCT02748603.

[1]  D. Berwick Avoiding overuse—the next quality frontier , 2017, The Lancet.

[2]  V. Schächinger,et al.  Description of a Heart Team approach to coronary revascularization and its beneficial long-term effect on clinical events after PCI , 2016, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[3]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization and Trends in Utilization, Patient Selection, and Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. , 2015, JAMA.

[4]  D. Altman,et al.  Major geographical variations in elective coronary revascularization by stents or surgery in England. , 2015, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[5]  E. Yow,et al.  A selection of recent, original research papers , 2015, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology.

[6]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous , 2014, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[7]  Stephen D. Persell,et al.  ACC/AHA/SCAI/AMA-Convened PCPI/NCQA 2013 Performance Measures for Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Amer , 2014, Circulation.

[8]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Patient and hospital characteristics associated with inappropriate percutaneous coronary interventions. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. , 2013, European heart journal.

[10]  Grace A Lin,et al.  Mortality in Medicare Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With or Without Antecedent Stress Testing , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[11]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II , 2013, The Lancet.

[12]  J. Spertus,et al.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 Appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Am , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  Dick M. Goedhart,et al.  The SYNTAX score revisited: A reassessment of the SYNTAX score reproducibility , 2010, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[14]  U. Siebert,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  Sean M. O'Brien,et al.  The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1--coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. , 2009, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[16]  M. Mack,et al.  Assessment of the SYNTAX score in the Syntax study. , 2009, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[17]  J. Spertus,et al.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Th , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[18]  Mario J. Garcia,et al.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization , 2009, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[19]  Grace A Lin,et al.  Frequency of stress testing to document ischemia prior to elective percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2008, JAMA.

[20]  P. H. van der Voort,et al.  Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  S. Cummings,et al.  Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiologic Approach , 1988 .

[22]  B. Gersh,et al.  ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease — addenda The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology , 2013 .

[23]  Samer A M Nashef,et al.  EuroSCORE II. , 2012, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[24]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  ESC / EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization , 2014 .

[25]  Frederick A. Masoudi,et al.  ACCF/SCAI/STS/MTS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization. Commentary , 2009 .