Premium
Comparison of coronary revascularization appropriateness for non‐acute coronary syndrome cases under the 2017 update vs the 2012 appropriate use criteria
Author(s) -
Case Brian C.,
Geiser Katherine M.,
Torguson Rebecca,
Pichard Augusto D.,
Satler Lowell F.,
Waksman Ron,
BenDor Itsik
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.27895
Subject(s) - medicine , conventional pci , revascularization , acute coronary syndrome , percutaneous coronary intervention , appropriate use criteria , angina , coronary artery disease , cardiology , area under the curve , myocardial infarction
Objectives To compare coronary revascularization appropriateness for non‐acute coronary syndrome cases under the 2017 update vs the 2012 appropriate use criteria (AUC). Background In 2017, the 2012 AUC for coronary revascularization were updated. We examined how applying these new 2017 updates to our previous inappropriate cases would change their appropriateness. Methods We identified 50 cases of patients who underwent coronary revascularization for stable ischemic heart disease who were deemed inappropriate under the 2012 AUC. Two separate physicians reviewed the cases and applied a new AUC based on the 2017 AUC. Next, if there was a change, the reason was identified. Results Average age was 64, majority being male (29; 58%). Forty‐two (84%) were asymptomatic upon presentation. Most cases (27, 54%) dealt with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the right coronary artery. After applying the 2017 AUC, 34 of the 50 inappropriate failures (68%) would be changed from “inappropriate” to “may be appropriate care.” Of the 34 cases, 25 (73.5%) were changed due to the new AUC no longer expecting the patient to be on ≥2 anti‐angina medications prior to PCI. Of the 34 cases, eight (23.5%) were changed due to the new AUC expanding the use of non‐invasive modalities. Conclusions Applying the 2017 AUC led to a statistically higher number of cases being deemed “may be appropriate.” The most common cause for the change included the change in requirement for anti‐angina regimen and the expanded role of non‐invasive modalities.