ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary Revascularization

Manesh R. Patel, Gregory J. Dehmer, John W. Hirshfeld, Peter K. Smith, John A. Spertus, Frederick A. Masoudi, Ralph G. Brindis, Gregory J. Dehraer, Karen J. Beckman, Charles E. Chambers, T. Bruce Ferguson, Mario J. Garcia, Frederick L. Grover, David R. Holmes, Lloyd W. Klein, Marian Limacher, Michael J. Mack, David J. Malenka, Myung H. Park, Michael Ragosta & 5 others James L. Ritchie, Geoffrey A. Rose, Alan B. Rosenberg, Richard J. Shemin, William S. Weintraub

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

151 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research. copy; 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1330-1352
Number of pages23
JournalCirculation
Volume119
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 10 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cardiology
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Coronary Artery Bypass
Survival
Health
Regional Health Planning
Transplants
Patient Education
Acute Coronary Syndrome
Anatomy
Decision Making
Ischemia
Physicians
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Patel, M. R., Dehmer, G. J., Hirshfeld, J. W., Smith, P. K., Spertus, J. A., Masoudi, F. A., ... Weintraub, W. S. (2009). ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary Revascularization. Circulation, 119(9), 1330-1352. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191768

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary Revascularization. / Patel, Manesh R.; Dehmer, Gregory J.; Hirshfeld, John W.; Smith, Peter K.; Spertus, John A.; Masoudi, Frederick A.; Brindis, Ralph G.; Dehraer, Gregory J.; Beckman, Karen J.; Chambers, Charles E.; Ferguson, T. Bruce; Garcia, Mario J.; Grover, Frederick L.; Holmes, David R.; Klein, Lloyd W.; Limacher, Marian; Mack, Michael J.; Malenka, David J.; Park, Myung H.; Ragosta, Michael; Ritchie, James L.; Rose, Geoffrey A.; Rosenberg, Alan B.; Shemin, Richard J.; Weintraub, William S.

In: Circulation, Vol. 119, No. 9, 10.03.2009, p. 1330-1352.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Patel, MR, Dehmer, GJ, Hirshfeld, JW, Smith, PK, Spertus, JA, Masoudi, FA, Brindis, RG, Dehraer, GJ, Beckman, KJ, Chambers, CE, Ferguson, TB, Garcia, MJ, Grover, FL, Holmes, DR, Klein, LW, Limacher, M, Mack, MJ, Malenka, DJ, Park, MH, Ragosta, M, Ritchie, JL, Rose, GA, Rosenberg, AB, Shemin, RJ & Weintraub, WS 2009, 'ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary Revascularization', Circulation, vol. 119, no. 9, pp. 1330-1352. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191768
Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA, Masoudi FA et al. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary Revascularization. Circulation. 2009 Mar 10;119(9):1330-1352. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191768
Patel, Manesh R. ; Dehmer, Gregory J. ; Hirshfeld, John W. ; Smith, Peter K. ; Spertus, John A. ; Masoudi, Frederick A. ; Brindis, Ralph G. ; Dehraer, Gregory J. ; Beckman, Karen J. ; Chambers, Charles E. ; Ferguson, T. Bruce ; Garcia, Mario J. ; Grover, Frederick L. ; Holmes, David R. ; Klein, Lloyd W. ; Limacher, Marian ; Mack, Michael J. ; Malenka, David J. ; Park, Myung H. ; Ragosta, Michael ; Ritchie, James L. ; Rose, Geoffrey A. ; Rosenberg, Alan B. ; Shemin, Richard J. ; Weintraub, William S. / ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary Revascularization. In: Circulation. 2009 ; Vol. 119, No. 9. pp. 1330-1352.
@article{763884afd84d433d9b900d722c8ec120,
title = "ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary Revascularization",
abstract = "The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research. copy; 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.",
author = "Patel, {Manesh R.} and Dehmer, {Gregory J.} and Hirshfeld, {John W.} and Smith, {Peter K.} and Spertus, {John A.} and Masoudi, {Frederick A.} and Brindis, {Ralph G.} and Dehraer, {Gregory J.} and Beckman, {Karen J.} and Chambers, {Charles E.} and Ferguson, {T. Bruce} and Garcia, {Mario J.} and Grover, {Frederick L.} and Holmes, {David R.} and Klein, {Lloyd W.} and Marian Limacher and Mack, {Michael J.} and Malenka, {David J.} and Park, {Myung H.} and Michael Ragosta and Ritchie, {James L.} and Rose, {Geoffrey A.} and Rosenberg, {Alan B.} and Shemin, {Richard J.} and Weintraub, {William S.}",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191768",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "119",
pages = "1330--1352",
journal = "Circulation",
issn = "0009-7322",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary Revascularization

AU - Patel, Manesh R.

AU - Dehmer, Gregory J.

AU - Hirshfeld, John W.

AU - Smith, Peter K.

AU - Spertus, John A.

AU - Masoudi, Frederick A.

AU - Brindis, Ralph G.

AU - Dehraer, Gregory J.

AU - Beckman, Karen J.

AU - Chambers, Charles E.

AU - Ferguson, T. Bruce

AU - Garcia, Mario J.

AU - Grover, Frederick L.

AU - Holmes, David R.

AU - Klein, Lloyd W.

AU - Limacher, Marian

AU - Mack, Michael J.

AU - Malenka, David J.

AU - Park, Myung H.

AU - Ragosta, Michael

AU - Ritchie, James L.

AU - Rose, Geoffrey A.

AU - Rosenberg, Alan B.

AU - Shemin, Richard J.

AU - Weintraub, William S.

PY - 2009/3/10

Y1 - 2009/3/10

N2 - The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research. copy; 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

AB - The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research. copy; 2009 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=63649127372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=63649127372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191768

DO - 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191768

M3 - Article

VL - 119

SP - 1330

EP - 1352

JO - Circulation

JF - Circulation

SN - 0009-7322

IS - 9

ER -