Woods K L, Ketley D, Agusti A, Hagn C, Kala R, Karatzas N B, Leizorowicz A, Reikvam A, Schilling J, Seabra-Gomes R, Vasiliauskas D, Wilhelmsen L
Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, UK.
Eur Heart J. 1998 Sep;19(9):1348-54. doi: 10.1053/euhj.1998.1027.
There is little evidence to inform routine practice in the use of coronary angiography and revascularization procedures after acute myocardial infarction. Large differences in the uptake of these procedures have been reported but representative data are scarce. Outcome studies have produced opposing conclusions concerning the impact of the high rate of these cardiac procedures.
A population-based patient sampling approach was utilized to identify routine practice in representative samples from 11 European countries. Data were collected retrospectively on treatment in the 6 months following acute myocardial infarction (n=2807). There was wide variation in utilization of coronary angiography and revascularization procedures. Even after restricting the analysis to patients <65 years (n=1262), there remained a 6 13 fold variation in the use of these procedures. A decreased likelihood of undergoing these procedures was associated with older age. In addition, there was an independent and negative association between female sex and utilization of coronary angiography and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
The effect on patient outcome of the observed variation in use of these procedures is not known but has important cost and resource implications for the health services. Outcome research is needed to define patient selection criteria and to measure the cost-utility of different angiography and revascularization rates.
