TY - JOUR
T1 - APpropriAteness of percutaneous Coronary interventions in patients with ischaemic HEart disease in Italy
T2 - The APACHE pilot study
AU - Leonardi, Sergio
AU - Marino, Marcello
AU - Crimi, Gabriele
AU - Maiorana, Florinda
AU - Rizzotti, Diego
AU - Lettieri, Corrado
AU - Bettari, Luca
AU - Zuccari, Marco
AU - Sganzerla, Paolo
AU - Tresoldi, Simone
AU - Adamo, Marianna
AU - Ghiringhelli, Sergio
AU - Sponzilli, Carlo
AU - Pasquetto, Giampaolo
AU - Pavei, Andrea
AU - Pedon, Luigi
AU - Bassan, Luciano
AU - Bollati, Mario
AU - Camisasca, Paola
AU - Trabattoni, Daniela
AU - Brancati, Marta
AU - Poli, Arnaldo
AU - Panciroli, Claudio
AU - Lettino, Maddalena
AU - Tarelli, Giuseppe
AU - Tarantini, Giuseppe
AU - De Luca, Leonardo
AU - Varbella, Ferdinando
AU - Musumeci, Giuseppe
AU - De Servi, Stefano
PY - 2017/9/1
Y1 - 2017/9/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - coronary heart disease
KW - multidisciplinary decision making
KW - percutaneous coronary intervention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029228330&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029228330&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016909
DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016909
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85029228330
VL - 7
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
SN - 2044-6055
IS - 9
M1 - e016909
ER -