As one of several initiatives to transform health care delivery across the United States, the National Priorities Partnership has identified “eliminating overuse while ensuring the delivery of appropriate care” as a top priority. Cardiac revascularization procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), constitute one area of focus for reduction of overuse. Despite the multiyear development of clinical guidelines to define appropriate use of cardiac revascularization, substantial variability in the application of these procedures is observed. Concurrent data collection tools to support real-time clinical decision making regarding appropriateness are needed and can be used, along with financial incentives such as pay-for-performance programs and public reporting of performance information, to support more appropriate use of cardiac revascularization. Efforts to achieve more rational use of CABG and PCI should be made carefully and with the goal that patients receive the most appropriate and effective care.
BrookRHChassinMRFinkASolomonDHKosecoffJParkRE. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2:53-63.
3.
PatelMRDehmerGJHirshfeldJWSmithPKSpertusJA. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology: endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Circulation. 2009;119:1330-1352.
4.
YoungPLOlsenL; Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine, Institute of Medicine. The Healthcare Imperative: Lowering Costs and Improving Outcomes: Brief Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2009.
5.
New England Healthcare Institute. Waste and Inefficiency in the U.S. Health Care System. Clinical Care: A Comprehensive Analysis in Support of System-Wide Improvements. Cambridge, MA; New England Healthcare Institute; 2008.
6.
National Priorities Partnership. National Priorities and Goals: Aligning Our Efforts to Transform America’s Healthcare. Washington, DC: National Quality Forum; 2008.
7.
LinGARedbergRFAndersonHV. Impact of changes in clinical practice guidelines on assessment of quality of care. Med Care. 2010;48:733-738.
8.
HerrinJEtchasonJAKahanJPBrookRHBallardDJ. Effect of panel composition on physician ratings of appropriateness of abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: elucidating differences between multispecialty panel results and specialty society recommendations. Health Policy. 1997;42:67-81.
9.
EagleKAGuytonRADavidoffR. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:e213-e310.
10.
McGlynnEAAschSMAdamsJ. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2635-2645.
11.
HannanELWuCChassinMR. Differences in per capita rates of revascularization and in choice of revascularization procedure for eleven states. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:35.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov/Nchs/. Accessed September 8, 2010.
14.
Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project (HCUP). http://www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/. Accessed September 8, 2010.
15.
BakerNWhittingtonJWResarRKGriffinFANolanKM. Reducing Costs Through the Appropriate Use of Specialty Services. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2010. IHI Innovation Series white paper.
16.
NallamothuBKKrumholzHM. Putting ad hoc PCI on pause. JAMA. 2010;304:2059-2060.
17.
O’ConnorGTOlmsteadEMNugentWC. Appropriateness of coronary artery bypass graft surgery performed in northern New England. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:2323-2328.
18.
WinslowCMKosecoffJBChassinMKanouseDEBrookRH. The appropriateness of performing coronary artery bypass surgery. JAMA. 1988;260:505-509.
19.
BernsteinSJHilborneLHLeapeLLParkREBrookRH. The appropriateness of use of cardiovascular procedures in women and men. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:2759-2765.
20.
LeapeLLHilborneLHParkRE. The appropriateness of use of coronary artery bypass graft surgery in New York State. JAMA. 1993;269:753-760.
21.
LeapeLLHilborneLHSchwartzJS. The appropriateness of coronary artery bypass graft surgery in academic medical centers. Working Group of the Appropriateness Project of the Academic Medical Center Consortium. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:8-18.
22.
McGlynnEANaylorCDAndersonGM. Comparison of the appropriateness of coronary angiography and coronary artery bypass graft surgery between Canada and New York State. JAMA. 1994;272:934-940.
23.
SchneiderECLeapeLLWeissmanJSPianaRNGatsonisCEpsteinAM. Racial differences in cardiac revascularization rates: does “overuse” explain higher rates among white patients?Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:328-337.
24.
AndersonHVShawREBrindisRG. A contemporary overview of percutaneous coronary interventions. The American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:1096-1103.
25.
HilborneLHLeapeLLBernsteinSJ. The appropriateness of use of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in New York State. JAMA. 1993;269:761-765.
26.
BrenerSJHaqSABoseSSacchiTJ. Three-year survival after percutaneous coronary intervention according to appropriateness criteria for revascularization. J Invasive Cardiol. 2009;21:554-557.
27.
KleinLW. How appropriate for assessing quality are the 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary revascularization?J Invasive Cardiol. 2009;21:558-562.
28.
Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. Improving Health Care Quality: Fact Sheet. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healtcare Research and Quality; 2002. AHRQ Publication No. 02-P032.
29.
LeapeLL. Unnecessary surgery. Annu Rev Public Health. 1992;13:363-383.
30.
LeungGMJohnstonJMTinKY. Randomised controlled trial of clinical decision support tools to improve learning of evidence based medicine in medical students. BMJ. 2003;327:1090.
31.
SamoreMHBatemanKAlderSC. Clinical decision support and appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005;294:2305-2314.
32.
LeapeLL. Unnecessary surgery. Health Serv Res. 1989;24:351-407.
33.
RosenthalMBDudleyRA. Pay-for-performance: will the latest payment trend improve care?JAMA. 2007;297:740-744.
34.
GrossbartSR. What’s the return? Assessing the effect of “pay-for-performance” initiatives on the quality of care delivery. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(1 suppl):29S-48S.
LeapeLL. Transparency and Public Reporting Are Essential for a Safe Health Care System. New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund; 2010.
37.
ArnoldSVDeckerCAhmadH. Converting the informed consent from a perfunctory process to an evidence-based foundation for patient decision making. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1:21-28.
38.
PetersonEDSpertusJACohenDJ. Vision and creation of the American Heart Association pharmaceutical roundtable outcomes research centers. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:663-670.
39.
KrumholzHM. Informed consent to promote patient-centered care. JAMA. 2010;24;303:1190-1191.
