Disparate opinions regarding indications for coronary artery revascularization before elective vascular surgery

Gordon L. Pierpont, Thomas E. Moritz, Steven Goldman, William C. Krupski, Fred Littooy, Herbert B. Ward, Edward O. McFalls

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite consensus guidelines, the optimal strategy for preoperative cardiac risk management among patients scheduled for major noncardiac surgery remains controversial. This study assesses current opinion about the role of preoperative coronary revascularization for patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for elective vascular surgery. Thirty-one practicing cardiologists recruited from 4 different regions reviewed case records, imaging tests, and coronary angiograms of 12 patients with coronary artery disease participating in the Coronary Artery Revascularization Prophylaxis (CARP) trial. The need for preoperative coronary revascularization was determined and results summarized using 3 categories: favoring conservative management, neutral, or recommending revascularization (either by percutaneous intervention or bypass surgery). We found recommendations were frequently disparate and often deviated from published guidelines (40% of the time). The likelihood of discordance between 2 cardiologists was 54%, with a 26% chance that recommendations for revascularization would be directly contradictory. Opinions were more often conservative (43%) or aggressive (40%) than neutral (17%). Similar inconsistency was found as to the preferred method of revascularization, with only 1 patient having complete agreement. Thus, this study reveals substantial differences of opinion among cardiologists across the country about the role of preoperative coronary artery revascularization for patients scheduled for elective vascular operations. Deviations from published guidelines are common, suggesting that current consensus statements need additional data to support their recommendations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1124-1128
Number of pages5
JournalThe American journal of cardiology
Volume94
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Blood Vessels
Coronary Vessels
Guidelines
Coronary Artery Disease
Risk Management
Angiography
Cardiologists

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Disparate opinions regarding indications for coronary artery revascularization before elective vascular surgery. / Pierpont, Gordon L.; Moritz, Thomas E.; Goldman, Steven; Krupski, William C.; Littooy, Fred; Ward, Herbert B.; McFalls, Edward O.

In: The American journal of cardiology, Vol. 94, No. 9, 01.11.2004, p. 1124-1128.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pierpont, Gordon L. ; Moritz, Thomas E. ; Goldman, Steven ; Krupski, William C. ; Littooy, Fred ; Ward, Herbert B. ; McFalls, Edward O. / Disparate opinions regarding indications for coronary artery revascularization before elective vascular surgery. In: The American journal of cardiology. 2004 ; Vol. 94, No. 9. pp. 1124-1128.
@article{af4734a451bf4b3a81b0bde47dea72ef,
title = "Disparate opinions regarding indications for coronary artery revascularization before elective vascular surgery",
abstract = "Despite consensus guidelines, the optimal strategy for preoperative cardiac risk management among patients scheduled for major noncardiac surgery remains controversial. This study assesses current opinion about the role of preoperative coronary revascularization for patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for elective vascular surgery. Thirty-one practicing cardiologists recruited from 4 different regions reviewed case records, imaging tests, and coronary angiograms of 12 patients with coronary artery disease participating in the Coronary Artery Revascularization Prophylaxis (CARP) trial. The need for preoperative coronary revascularization was determined and results summarized using 3 categories: favoring conservative management, neutral, or recommending revascularization (either by percutaneous intervention or bypass surgery). We found recommendations were frequently disparate and often deviated from published guidelines (40{\%} of the time). The likelihood of discordance between 2 cardiologists was 54{\%}, with a 26{\%} chance that recommendations for revascularization would be directly contradictory. Opinions were more often conservative (43{\%}) or aggressive (40{\%}) than neutral (17{\%}). Similar inconsistency was found as to the preferred method of revascularization, with only 1 patient having complete agreement. Thus, this study reveals substantial differences of opinion among cardiologists across the country about the role of preoperative coronary artery revascularization for patients scheduled for elective vascular operations. Deviations from published guidelines are common, suggesting that current consensus statements need additional data to support their recommendations.",
author = "Pierpont, {Gordon L.} and Moritz, {Thomas E.} and Steven Goldman and Krupski, {William C.} and Fred Littooy and Ward, {Herbert B.} and McFalls, {Edward O.}",
year = "2004",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.07.077",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "1124--1128",
journal = "American Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0002-9149",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Disparate opinions regarding indications for coronary artery revascularization before elective vascular surgery

AU - Pierpont, Gordon L.

AU - Moritz, Thomas E.

AU - Goldman, Steven

AU - Krupski, William C.

AU - Littooy, Fred

AU - Ward, Herbert B.

AU - McFalls, Edward O.

PY - 2004/11/1

Y1 - 2004/11/1

N2 - Despite consensus guidelines, the optimal strategy for preoperative cardiac risk management among patients scheduled for major noncardiac surgery remains controversial. This study assesses current opinion about the role of preoperative coronary revascularization for patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for elective vascular surgery. Thirty-one practicing cardiologists recruited from 4 different regions reviewed case records, imaging tests, and coronary angiograms of 12 patients with coronary artery disease participating in the Coronary Artery Revascularization Prophylaxis (CARP) trial. The need for preoperative coronary revascularization was determined and results summarized using 3 categories: favoring conservative management, neutral, or recommending revascularization (either by percutaneous intervention or bypass surgery). We found recommendations were frequently disparate and often deviated from published guidelines (40% of the time). The likelihood of discordance between 2 cardiologists was 54%, with a 26% chance that recommendations for revascularization would be directly contradictory. Opinions were more often conservative (43%) or aggressive (40%) than neutral (17%). Similar inconsistency was found as to the preferred method of revascularization, with only 1 patient having complete agreement. Thus, this study reveals substantial differences of opinion among cardiologists across the country about the role of preoperative coronary artery revascularization for patients scheduled for elective vascular operations. Deviations from published guidelines are common, suggesting that current consensus statements need additional data to support their recommendations.

AB - Despite consensus guidelines, the optimal strategy for preoperative cardiac risk management among patients scheduled for major noncardiac surgery remains controversial. This study assesses current opinion about the role of preoperative coronary revascularization for patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for elective vascular surgery. Thirty-one practicing cardiologists recruited from 4 different regions reviewed case records, imaging tests, and coronary angiograms of 12 patients with coronary artery disease participating in the Coronary Artery Revascularization Prophylaxis (CARP) trial. The need for preoperative coronary revascularization was determined and results summarized using 3 categories: favoring conservative management, neutral, or recommending revascularization (either by percutaneous intervention or bypass surgery). We found recommendations were frequently disparate and often deviated from published guidelines (40% of the time). The likelihood of discordance between 2 cardiologists was 54%, with a 26% chance that recommendations for revascularization would be directly contradictory. Opinions were more often conservative (43%) or aggressive (40%) than neutral (17%). Similar inconsistency was found as to the preferred method of revascularization, with only 1 patient having complete agreement. Thus, this study reveals substantial differences of opinion among cardiologists across the country about the role of preoperative coronary artery revascularization for patients scheduled for elective vascular operations. Deviations from published guidelines are common, suggesting that current consensus statements need additional data to support their recommendations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=7044229543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=7044229543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.07.077

DO - 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.07.077

M3 - Article

VL - 94

SP - 1124

EP - 1128

JO - American Journal of Cardiology

JF - American Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0002-9149

IS - 9

ER -