TCTAP A-142 Appropriateness Ratings of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Association with Cardiac Event

Tsuda, Daisuke; Kamada, Takenobu; Iwasaki, Masanori

doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.174

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The America 2012 AUC were used in 11 studies [ 18 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 41 , 43 , 46 ], the America 2009 AUC were used in nine studies [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 36 , 40 , 48 , 51 , 52 ], the America 2017 AUC were used in three studies [ 21 , 34 , 50 ], and the China 2016 AUC and Japan 2007 AUC were both used once [ 37 , 53 ]. Thirteen studies were performed in the US [ 18 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 40 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 51 ], three in Japan [ 33 , 34 , 37 ], two in India [ 41 , 43 ], two in Canada [ 36 , 52 ], one in China [ 53 ], one in Pakistan [ 22 ], one in Indonesia [ 21 ], one in the UK [ 29 ], and one in both Canada and the US [ 24 ]. Five studies were performed in developing countries [ 21 ...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies in Japan [ 34 ] showed that the rarely appropriate CTO PCIs were not associated with the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). There was no difference in the occurrence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) in an inappropriate PCI group six months after PCI [ 33 ]. In Brazil, no difference in procedural complications and 2-year MACE among three appropriateness groups was found [ 47 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Liu

Chen

Chang

et al. 2023

JCDD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Since the foundation of appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization, the proportion of inappropriate (later revised as “rarely inappropriate”) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) varied in different populations. However, the pooled inappropriate PCI rate remains unknown. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Sinomed databases for studies related to AUC and PCIs. Studies that reported inappropriate/rarely appropriate PCI rates were included. A random effects model was employed in the meta-analysis because of the high statistical heterogeneity. Results: Thirty-seven studies were included in our study, of which eight studies reported the appropriateness of acute PCIs or PCIs in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, 25 studies reported the appropriateness of non-acute/elective PCIs or PCIs in non-ACS/stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) patients, and 15 studies reported both acute and non-acute PCIs or did not distinguish the urgency of PCI. The pooled inappropriate PCI rate was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.6–6.4%) in acute scenarios, 8.9% (95% CI: 6.7–11.0%) in non-acute scenarios, and 6.1% (95% CI: 4.9–7.3%) overall. The inappropriate/rarely appropriate PCI rate was significantly higher in non-acute than acute scenarios. No difference in the inappropriate PCI rate was detected based on the study location, the country’s level of development, or the presence of chronic total occlusion (CTO). Conclusions: The worldwide inappropriate PCI rate is generally identical but comparatively high, especially under non-acute scenarios.

show abstract