Resumen de Evaluation of Inappropriate Coronary Revascularization Procedures according to the New Classification in a Cardiovascular Tertiary Referral Center

Mariano Albertal, Alfonsina Candiello, Fernando Cura, Marcelo Trivi, Jorge Thierer, Lucio Padilla, Gerardo Nau, Daniel Navia, Jorge Belardi

• español

  Introducción Una revascularización coronaria inapropiada conlleva un riesgo muchas veces evitable para el paciente y se traduce en gastos innecesarios para el sistema de salud. Recientemente, los miembros de un panel de expertos en enfermedades cardiovasculares evaluaron el criterio de adecuación de la indicación de revascularización coronaria en varios escenarios clínicos comunes.ObjetivosIdentificar la proporción de revascularización coronaria inapropiada tanto percutánea (ATC) como quirúrgica (CRM) conforme al criterio de adecuación en un centro de alta complejidad cardiovascular.Material y métodosDesde enero hasta mayo de 2009 se incluyeron en forma consecutiva todos los pacientes derivados a nuestro centro con la indicación clínica de coronariografía que presentaron enfermedad coronaria significativa (estenosis ≥ 70%) y fueron sometidos a revascularización percutánea o quirúrgica. Se evaluó en este grupo la tasa de indicación inapropiada de revascularización coronaria conforme el criterio de adecuación recientemente publicado.

• English

  Background Inappropriate use of revascularization may be potentially harmful to patients and generate unwarranted costs to the health care system. Recently, the members of an expert panel conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered.ObjectivesTo identify the proportion of inappropriate coronary revascularization procedures –percutaneous (PTCA) and surgical (CABG) – in a cardiovascular tertiary referral center according to appropriateness criterion.Material and MethodsWe consecutively included all patients referred to our center for coronary angiography from January to May 2009 with a significant coronary stenosis (≥ 70%) who underwent percutaneous or surgical revascularization, and evaluated the rate of inappropriate revascularization according to appropriateness criterion recently published.ResultsFrom a total of 568 coronary angiographies, 404 (71.2%) had at least a coronary stenosis ≥70%; 81 patients underwent CABGS (20%) and 295 PTCA (73%). In these 376 revascularized patients, the indication was considered inappropriate in 15 (4%), all of them in the PTCA group (15/295; 5%), while only 2 patients with multivessel disease (n=172, 1.2%) underwent inappropriate revascularization.ConclusionsIn a cardiovascular tertiary referral center, the proportion of inappropriate coronary revascularization procedures (percutaneous or surgical) was low. Appropriateness criterion may be an applicable tool for decision-making in patients with coronary artery disease and for quality control in the departments of cardiology.