English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The first appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization were published in 2009 with an update published in 2012.1,2 A new version of the AUC for coronary revascularization is currently under development and will, we hope, address some of the constructive criticisms directed at the earlier versions. The use of AUC is increasing, and several other organizations have developed AUC for different procedures outside the cardiovascular arena. For example, orthopedic surgeons now have AUC for several of their common procedures, the American Academy of Dermatology has AUC for Mohs surgery, and AUC for the placement of Foley catheters recently were published.3–5 With the increasing development, promotion, and adoption of AUC, it is reasonable to ask a critical question: What are the effects of AUC on the delivery of cardiovascular care? This is a fair question because the AUC are intended to address the rational use of coronary revascularization, to provide a practical standard on which to assess and understand variability, and to evaluate overall patterns of care for coronary revascularization.Article see p 20The article by Bradley and colleagues6 in this issue of Circulation provides some insight into that question. Using data from the Washington State Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program, they examined temporal trends in the number of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures performed, specifically the number of PCIs rated as inappropriate. High-performing hospitals were identified by a low or declining proportion of inappropriate PCIs or PCIs performed with insufficient preprocedural information to allow the assessment of appropriateness. They showed that, after the adoption of the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program, there was an overall decline in the number of PCIs performed and specifically a substantial decline in the number of PCIs for elective indications. Although there was a slight increase in the …

Use of Appropriate Use Criteria Is Increasing, but What Are Their Effects on Medical Care?