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 RagostaJames L. Ritchie, Geoffrey A. Rose, Alan B. Rosenberg, Richard J. Shemin, William S. Weintraub

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

153 Scopus citations

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Patel, M. R., Dehmer, G. J., Hirshfeld, J. W., Smith, P. K., Spertus, J. A., Masoudi, F. A., Brindis, R. G., Dehraer, G. J., Beckman, K. J., Chambers, C. E., Ferguson, T. B., Garcia, M. J., Grover, F. L., Holmes, D. R., Klein, L. W., Limacher, M., Mack, M. J., Malenka, D. J., Park, M. H., ... 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