Abstract
Objective—To devise a clinical prioritisation system for rationing access to a cardiac catheter waiting list and to describe its performance at predicting angiographic findings and selecting patients for angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Setting—Tertiary level cardiology centre. Methods—(1) 665 consecutive patients on an elective waiting list for coronary angiography were scored using a system derived from established clinical criteria for selecting patients for coronary surgery (New Zealand/Duke). The scores were compared with clinical outcome (referral for surgery, angioplasty, or medical management). (2) In a subset of 125 patients, scores derived from clinical criteria and exercise testing were compared with findings on coronary angiography. (3) Multivariate analysis was used in a new group of 178 patients to identify factors that would be better predictors of the angiographic score. (4) A new scoring system was devised based partly on the results of the multivariate analysis. It was applied to a new test group of 100 patients using clinical outcome and angiographic score as outcome measures. Results—(1) Using the established clinical score, similar proportions of patients were referred after angiography for medical management, angioplasty, or coronary bypass grafting, irrespective of their original score. The exceptions were patients with a score < 20, who were more likely to continue medical management. (2) There was poor correlation (r = 0.05) between the clinical score and the subsequent angiographic score. (3) Multivariate analysis identified age, male sex, previous myocardial infarction, high cholesterol, and diabetes as independent predictors of coronary score. (4) The modified scoring system, incorporating the predictors identified by multivariate analysis, performed better than the original scoring system in predicting coronary score when both were tested, but some patients had severe disease despite a low score. Conclusions—Patients can be ranked using clinical and non-invasive criteria, and a rationing system implemented on this basis. With prioritisation by non-invasive criteria, the risk of missing serious coronary disease in patients with relatively mild symptoms must be accepted; this risk becomes greater the more stringently rationing is applied. Keywords: prioritisation; coronary angiography
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (108.8 KB).
Figure 1 .
Cumulative frequency curve for non-invasive scores applied to 665 catheter waiting list patients.
Figure 2 .
Relation between original clinical score and postangiography management decision for 572 patients for whom outcome data were available.
Figure 3 .
Ability of the modified scoring system to predict patients' angiographic scores (grouped as described in the text) in a new test group of 100 consecutive patients.
Figure 4 .
Receiver operating characteristic curve (% sensitivity v 100 − % specificity) for the ability of the modified scoring system to identify patients with angiographic scores in the two highest categories (groups 3 or 4) in a new test group of 100 patients.
Figure 5 .
Relation between modified score and clinical outcome in a new test group of 100 patients.
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Black N., Langham S., Coshall C., Parker J. Impact of the 1991 NHS reforms on the availability and use of coronary revascularisation in the UK (1987-1995) Heart. 1996 Dec;76(4 Suppl 4):1–31. doi: 10.1136/hrt.76.4_suppl_4.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Curzen N., Patel D., Clarke D., Wright C., Mulcahy D., Sullivan A., Holdright D., Fox K. Women with chest pain: is exercise testing worthwhile? Heart. 1996 Aug;76(2):156–160. doi: 10.1136/hrt.76.2.156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gray D., Hampton J. R. Methods of establishing criteria for purchasing coronary angiography in the investigation of chest pain. J Public Health Med. 1994 Dec;16(4):399–405. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a043020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gray D., Hampton J. R. Variations in the use of coronary angiography in three cities in the Trent Region. Br Heart J. 1994 May;71(5):474–478. doi: 10.1136/hrt.71.5.474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hadorn D. C., Holmes A. C. The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 2: Coronary artery bypass graft surgery. BMJ. 1997 Jan 11;314(7074):135–138. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7074.135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kadel C., Burger W., Klepzig H. Qualitätssicherung in der invasiven Kardiologie. Eine prospektive Untersuchung zur Bewertung von Indikationen zur Koronarangiographie und zur Koronardilatation nach der Methode der "RAND Corporation". Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1996 Apr 12;121(15):465–471. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1043028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mark D. B., Nelson C. L., Califf R. M., Harrell F. E., Jr, Lee K. L., Jones R. H., Fortin D. F., Stack R. S., Glower D. D., Smith L. R. Continuing evolution of therapy for coronary artery disease. Initial results from the era of coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1994 May;89(5):2015–2025. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.89.5.2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Noonan S. J., Cook J. L., Keller C. E., Rosenkrans C. M., Healy J. M., Jr, Feingold L., Schoenbaum S. C. Relationship of anatomic disease to appropriateness ratings of coronary angiography. Arch Intern Med. 1995 Jun 12;155(11):1209–1213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]