Skip to main content
British Heart Journal logoLink to British Heart Journal
. 1994 May;71(5):474–478. doi: 10.1136/hrt.71.5.474

Variations in the use of coronary angiography in three cities in the Trent Region.

D Gray 1, J R Hampton 1
PMCID: PMC483727  PMID: 8011414

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To establish the characteristics of patients referred for coronary angiography and the outcome of investigation. DESIGN--Prospective study. SETTING--Three regional referral centres at Sheffield, Leicester, and Nottingham. PATIENTS--All patients referred for investigation from 1 July 1988 to 30 June 1989. INTERVENTIONS--Coronary angiography for suspected ischaemic heart disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Site and extent of coronary artery disease at coronary angiography and subsequent intervention. RESULTS--There was a range of clinical activity with a trend towards symptomatic control in Nottingham where patients tended to have more severe angina of long duration and extensive drug treatment. Important coronary lesions were often found and most patients needed coronary artery bypass surgery or angioplasty. In Leicester and Sheffield, where angiography was used prognostically, patients tended to have mild angina of shorter duration and less extensive medical treatment; significant coronary disease was often found but fewer patients were recommended for further intervention. CONCLUSIONS--Referral for coronary angiography seems to reflect philosophical differences among the referring physicians. Referring patients late in the disease process ensures that most have a subsequent intervention but the benefits of revascularisation may be denied to those with mild symptoms but extensive coronary disease.

Full text

PDF

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Ambrose J. A. Unsettled indications for coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984 Jun;3(6):1575–1580. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(84)80300-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bobbio M., Pollock B. H., Cohen I., Diamond G. A. Comparative accuracy of clinical tests for diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1988 Nov 1;62(13):896–900. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(88)90889-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bruschke A. V., Proudfit W. L., Sones F. M., Jr Progress study of 590 consecutive nonsurgical cases of coronary disease followed 5-9 years. II. Ventriculographic and other correlations. Circulation. 1973 Jun;47(6):1154–1163. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.47.6.1154. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cannon P. J., Connell P. A., Stockley I. H., Garner S. T., Hampton J. R. Prevalence of angina as assessed by a survey of prescriptions for nitrates. Lancet. 1988 Apr 30;1(8592):979–981. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)91790-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chassin M. R., Brook R. H., Park R. E., Keesey J., Fink A., Kosecoff J., Kahn K., Merrick N., Solomon D. H. Variations in the use of medical and surgical services by the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 1986 Jan 30;314(5):285–290. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198601303140505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gray D., Hampton J. R., Bernstein S. J., Kosecoff J., Brook R. H. Audit of coronary angiography and bypass surgery. Lancet. 1990 Jun 2;335(8701):1317–1320. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)91196-h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Naylor C. D., Baigrie R. S., Goldman B. S., Basinski A. Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation procedures. Revascularisation Panel and Consensus Methods Group. Lancet. 1990 May 5;335(8697):1070–1073. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92640-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Sanmarco M. E., Pontius S., Selvester R. H. Abnormal blood pressure response and marked ischemic ST-segment depression as predictors of severe coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1980 Mar;61(3):572–578. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.61.3.572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Heart Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES