ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2020
Appropriate use criteria for coronary angiography: a single centre experience.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sex-Specific Analysis of Carotid Artery Through Bilateral 3D Modeling via MRI and DICOM Processing.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing attention is being given to the rational use of invasive procedures. In this study, we aimed to evaluate, among patients referred for coronary angiography, the appropriateness of cardiac catheterization according to the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for diagnostic catheterization and to examine the relationship between the appropriateness and the presence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and revascularization.
methodsFrom November 2017 to December 2018, 1188 consecutive patients referred to undergo a diagnostic catheterization were included. They were categorized as having appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate indication, using a database (Melograno System). We restricted our analysis to 9 appropriate indications including acute coronary syndromes, suspected CAD, valvular heart disease, arrhythmias and cardiomyopathy. We restricted the analysis to the subgroup of patients with suspected or known CAD and, among them, we evaluate the rate of CAD and the need for revascularization.
resultsThe indications were appropriate in 1017 patients (85.6%), of uncertain appropriateness in 134 (11.3%), and inappropriate in 37 (3.1%). Restricting the analysis to the CAD subgroup, the indications were appropriate in 848 patients (83.3%), of uncertain appropriateness in 133 (13.1%) and inappropriate in 37 (3.6%). The proportion of patients with critical CAD were 75.9%, 44.3% and 29.7% in the appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate categories respectively (p < 0.001). The revascularization rate was 63.1%, 32.2% and 21.6% in the appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate categories respectively (p < 0.001).
conclusionsApplication of AUC is feasible in a community setting. Melograno system is useful to improve patient care.
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.