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.

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.