Effect of physician specialty on treatment recommendation to patients with coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of physician specialty and the way in which patient data are presented in the treatment recommended for patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: In a prospective study, 3,628 patients with significant coronary artery disease who had been referred to 1 of 10 heart centers in the Netherlands as possible candidates for either percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) were recruited. Within each center, the recommended treatment is determined by a team consisting of cardiologists only, cardiovascular surgeons only, or cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons (i.e., composite teams). The main outcome measures are the proportions of patients for whom PTCA, CABG, or noninvasive (medical) therapy was recommended. RESULTS: Composite teams made 71% of recommendations, surgeon-only teams, 12%, and cardiologist-only teams, 17%. Cardiologist-only teams primarily recommended patients to PTCA, surgeon-only teams to CABG, while combined teams made more evenly distributed recommendations (p < .001). Although the patients discussed by the three types of teams were clinically different, the recommendation patterns remained significant after adjusting for these differences (p < .001). For patients with recent myocardial infarction, direct presentation of the case to the team by the referring cardiologist reduced the likelihood that CABG would be recommended. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment recommended to patients with coronary artery disease is affected by the composition of the team providing the recommendation. These findings have important implications for clinical decision making for patients with cardiovascular disease.

Waiting for coronary revascularization: a comparison between New York State, The Netherlands and Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To compare waiting times for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in New York State, the Netherlands and Sweden and to determine whether queuing adversely affects patients' health. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 4487 chronic stable angina patients who underwent PTCA or CABG in one of 15 New York State hospitals (n = 1021) or were referred for PTCA or CABG to one of ten hospitals in the Netherlands (n = 1980) or to one of seven hospitals in Sweden (n = 1486). We measured the median waiting time between coronary angiography and PTCA or CABG. RESULTS: The median waiting time for PTCA in New York was 13 days compared with 35 and 42 days, respectively, in the Netherlands and Sweden (P < 0.001). For CABG, New York patients waited 17 days, while Dutch and Swedish patients waited 72 and 59 days, respectively (P < 0.001). The Swedish and Dutch waiting list mortality rate was 0.8% for CABG candidates and 0.15% for PTCA candidates. CONCLUSIONS: There were large variations in waiting time for coronary revascularization among these three sites. Patients waiting for CABG were at greatest risk of experiencing an adverse event. In both the Netherlands and Sweden, the capacity to perform coronary revascularization has been expanded since this study began. Further international cooperation may identify other areas where quality of care can be improved.

Setting standards for effectiveness: a comparison of expert panels and decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare criteria for coronary revascularization developed by the expert panel process and by decision analysis. METHOD: We reviewed the medical records of 3080 chronic stable angina patients who either underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and determined the agreement between appropriateness ratings made by two expert physician panels, one from the United States and the second from The Netherlands. We also evaluated the agreement between these panels' appropriateness ratings and a decision analytic model's effectiveness categories. RESULTS: There was poor agreement between U.S. and Dutch panel appropriateness ratings for PTCA (kappa = 0.03) and slight agreement for bypass surgery (kappa = 0.18). Dutch ratings had substantial agreement with the decision analytic models effectiveness categories for both PTCA and CABG (kappa = 0.83 and 0.79, respectively) whereas there was no systematic agreement between U.S. ratings and the decision analytic model for PTCA and poor agreement for CABG (kappa = 0.00 and 0.18, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although the level of agreement between expert panels and decision analysis on when a procedure is appropriate or effective may vary by procedure and the strength of the scientific evidence, we found that Dutch physicians agree much more strongly with decision analysis than U.S. physicians.

Indications for coronary revascularisation: a Dutch perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the appropriateness of indications for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). METHODS: A modified Delphi group judgement process with input from a panel of six interventional cardiologists and six cardiopulmonary surgeons. There was one clinician from each of the 12 tertiary referral heart centres in The Netherlands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ratings by panel members, on a 1 to 9 scale, of indications presented as a choice between two treatments (CABG v medical treatment, PTCA v medical treatment, and CABG v PTCA) for 1182 model cases. Each case represented a unique combination of clinical features in terms of symptoms, medical history, and results of tests. Ratings were analysed with respect to degree of agreement among panelists, degree of appropriateness of indications, and panel's preference for invasive or medical treatment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 58.6% and disagreed on 3.2% of the indications. The panel opted for invasive treatment in 48.2% and medical treatment in 22.8%, and had no clear preference for either method in 29.0% of the cases. When compared with medical treatment, CABG was more often rated appropriate than PTCA: 35.4% v 21.6% (P < 0.001). Panel scores depended on severity of anatomical disease. For instance, for 51.5% of the model cases with one-vessel disease not including the proximal left anterior descending artery, the panel preferred medical treatment to invasive treatment, while the latter was preferred in 18% of the cases. In cases with type C lesions, the panel frequently rated PTCA as inappropriate. Panel scores were also affected by nonclinical factors. Cardiologists and surgeons rated the procedure of their own specialty higher than the alternative invasive intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The panel method yields logically consistent scores of the appropriateness of indications for carrying out medical procedures. It may be an aid in formulating clinical practice guidelines.

The appropriateness of intention to treat decisions for invasive therapy in coronary artery disease in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the appropriateness of intention to treat decisions concerning coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) for patients with coronary artery disease in The Netherlands. DESIGN: Prospective study of intention to treat decisions using a computerised expert system. SETTING: "Presentation" sessions in 10 tertiary referral heart centres in 1992. PATIENTS: 3207 consecutive patients: 1618 CABG and 1589 PTCA candidates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentage of invasive treatment decisions rated appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate by the expert system. RESULTS: PTCA decisions were common for patients with one-vessel disease and CABG decisions for patients with three-vessel and left main disease. PTCA decisions outnumbered CABG decisions in acute myocardial infarction. Of CABG decisions, 84% were rated appropriate, 12% uncertain, and 4% inappropriate. The proportions for PTCA decisions were 39% appropriate, 31% uncertain, and 29% inappropriate. Type C lesion was the main determinant of inappropriateness of PTCA decisions. If type C lesions were downgraded to type A/B lesions the rate of inappropriate PTCA decisions dropped to 6%. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in tertiary referral centres in The Netherlands favoured CABG if vessel disease was extensive or involved the left main artery, and PTCA for patients with less extensive disease and with acute myocardial infarction. Few CABG decisions were inappropriate. The main determinant of inappropriateness of PTCA decisions was its intended use in patients with type C lesions.

[Assessment of indications using the RAND method: invasive therapy in coronary sclerosis as an example]. / Beoordeling van indicatiestelling met de RAND-methode: invasieve therapie bij coronairsclerose als voorbeeld.

OBJECTIVE: To assess indications for performing medical procedures for their appropriateness, using a method designed by an American research institute, RAND. DESIGN: Delphi investigation SETTING: The Netherlands. METHOD: The RAND method was applied in the 'Dutch inventory of invasive coronary atherosclerosis treatments' study which concerns treatment choices in coronary artery disease: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and conservative treatment. Essential in the RAND method is the construction of a comprehensive matrix of potential indications. Each indication entails a comparison of two or three treatment options. A panel of 12 experts rated each indication in a two-stage process. When the majority of the panelists agreed that treatment option X was strongly to be preferred over Y, it was considered appropriate to perform X and inappropriate to perform Y. RESULTS: The experiences with the RAND method indicated that panelists judged critically and rated many indications for invasive treatment options as inappropriate or uncertain. The method was feasible, although not easy, and produced clinically valid results. CONCLUSION: The RAND method is especially useful when medical literature does not supply sufficient grounds in rating the appropriateness of an indication for medical procedure. However, the verdict 'appropriate' is not eternal. Medical science keeps evolving.

Is unified monitoring improving patient care?

We compared our standard method of data presentation in the operating room (i.e., using "front end" equipment) with a newly developed, computerized monitoring system called the data acquisition and display system. These two systems differed in that data presentation using the standard front-end equipment was scattered and poorly structured, whereas data obtained from the newly developed system were unified and integrated. To effect the comparison, we examined the "controllability" (i.e., the precision of control) by the anesthesiologist of hemodynamic variables: arterial systolic, mean, and diastolic pressures, mean pulmonary artery pressure, mean central venous pressure, and heart rate. Controllability was assumed to be an indictor of the quality of anesthesia. All perioperative data were stored every 15 seconds on a floppy disk, and these data were available for analysis. The controllability was quantified by calculating the surface area of the signal of a variable outside a defined control zone; the smaller this surface area, the greater the controllability. A Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon statistical test was done to test whether the two different data presentation systems would result in different levels of controllability (the first zero hypothesis). A Kruskal-Wallis test was done to examine the "inter-anesthesiologist variability" between the two systems (the second zero hypothesis). Our data showed great variability. Looking for factors that might explain this, we found that if preoperative systolic blood pressure was greater than 160 mm Hg and diastolic pressure was greater than 95 mm Hg, hemodynamic variables fluctuated more widely. We could show no differences in controllability when the two systems were compared overall.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)