Validation of the appropriate use criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease (from the COURAGE trial).

Bradley SM, Chan PS, Hartigan PM, Nallamothu BK, Weintraub WS, Sedlis SP, Dada M, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ, Berman DS, Teo KK, Mancini GB, Boden WE, Spertus JA. Validation of the appropriate use criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease (from the COURAGE trial). The American journal of cardiology. 2015 Jul 15; 116(2):167-73.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 10-199 – Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

Establishing the validity of appropriate use criteria (AUC) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of stable ischemic heart disease can support their adoption for quality improvement. We conducted a post hoc analysis of 2,287 Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation trial patients with stable ischemic heart disease randomized to PCI with optimal medical therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. Within appropriateness categories, we compared rates of death, myocardial infarction, revascularization subsequent to initial therapy, and angina-specific health status as determined by the Seattle Angina Questionnaire in patients randomized to PCI + OMT to those randomized to OMT alone. A total of 1,987 patients (87.9%) were mapped to the 2012 publication of the AUC, with 1,334 (67.1%) classified as appropriate, 551 (27.7%) uncertain, and 102 (5.1%) as inappropriate. There were no significant differences between PCI and OMT alone in the rate of mortality and myocardial infarction by appropriateness classification. Rates of revascularization were significantly lower in patients initially receiving PCI + OMT who were classified as appropriate (hazard ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.80; p < 0.001) or uncertain (hazard ratio 0.49; 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.76; p = 0.001). Furthermore, among patients classified as appropriate by the AUC, Seattle Angina Questionnaire scores at 1 month were better in the PCI-treated group compared with the medical therapy group (80 ± 23 vs 75 ± 24 for angina frequency, 73 ± 24 vs 68 ± 24 for physical limitations, and 68 ± 23 vs 60 ± 24 for quality of life; all p < 0.01), with differences generally persisting through 12 months. In contrast, health status scores were similar throughout the first year of follow-up in PCI + OMT patients compared with OMT alone in patients classified as uncertain or inappropriate. In conclusion, these findings support the validity of the AUC in efforts to improve health care quality through optimal use of PCI.