Observational studyArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2019
Analysis of the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Angiography in Two Cardiology Services of Southern Brazil.
Observational study in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Coronary Angiography and Revascularization Rates Made Over 5 Years in Public Institutions in Türkiye.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Angiography at Two Hospitals in Southern Brazil: "Doing the Right Things And Doing Things Right".Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite its great relevance, there are no studies in our country evaluating the application of the 2012 guidelines for the appropriate use of cardiac diagnostic catheterization.
objectiveTo analyze the adequacy of coronary angiography performed in two hospitals in the southern region of Brazil.
methodsThis is a multicenter cross-sectional study, which analyzed indications, results and proposals for the treatment of 737 coronary angiograms performed in a tertiary hospital with multiple specialties (Hospital A) and a tertiary cardiology hospital (Hospital B). Elective or emergency coronary angiographies were included, except for cases of acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation. The level of statistical significance adopted was 5% (p < 0.05).
resultsOf the 737 coronary angiograms, 63.9% were performed in male patients. The mean age was 61.6 years. The indication was acute coronary syndrome in 57.1%, and investigation of coronary artery disease in 42.9% of the cases. Regarding appropriation, 80.6% were classified as appropriate, 15.1% occasionally appropriate, and 4.3% rarely appropriate. The proposed treatment was clinical for 62.7%, percutaneous coronary intervention for 24.6%, and myocardial revascularization surgery for 12.7% of the cases. Of the coronary angiographies classified as rarely appropriate, 56.2% were related to non-performance of previous functional tests, and 21.9% showed severe coronary lesions. However, regardless of the outcome of coronary angiography, all patients in this group were indicated for clinical treatment.
conclusionWe observed a low number of rarely appropriate coronary angiograms in our sample. The guideline recommendation in these cases was adequate, and no patient required revascularization treatment. Most of these cases are due to non-performance of functional tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.