[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Original Contribution
July 6, 2011

Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Saint Luke's Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute, Kansas City, Missouri (Drs Chan and Spertus and Mr Kennedy); University of Missouri-Kansas City (Drs Chan and Spertus); Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina (Dr Patel); Rush Medical College and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois (Dr Klein); Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri (Dr Krone); Scott & White Healthcare, Texas A & M College of Medicine, Temple (Dr Dehmer); Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence and University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor (Dr Nallamothu); Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan (Dr Weaver); University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora (Dr Masoudi); Denver Veterans Administration Medical Center, Denver, Colorado (Dr Rumsfeld); Northern California Kaiser Permanente, Oakland (Dr Brindis); and University of California, San Francisco (Dr Brindis).

JAMA. 2011;306(1):53-61. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.916

Context Despite the widespread use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the appropriateness of these procedures in contemporary practice is unknown.

Objective To assess the appropriateness of PCI in the United States.

Design, Setting, and Patients Multicenter, prospective study of patients within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry undergoing PCI between July 1, 2009, and September 30, 2010, at 1091 US hospitals. The appropriateness of PCI was adjudicated using the appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization. Results were stratified by whether the procedure was performed for an acute (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or unstable angina with high-risk features) or nonacute indication.

Main Outcome Measures Proportion of acute and nonacute PCIs classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate; extent of hospital-level variation in inappropriate procedures.

Results Of 500 154 PCIs, 355 417 (71.1%) were for acute indications (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 103 245 [20.6%]; non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 105 708 [21.1%]; high-risk unstable angina, 146 464 [29.3%]), and 144 737 (28.9%) for nonacute indications. For acute indications, 350 469 PCIs (98.6%) were classified as appropriate, 1055 (0.3%) as uncertain, and 3893 (1.1%) as inappropriate. For nonacute indications, 72 911 PCIs (50.4%) were classified as appropriate, 54 988 (38.0%) as uncertain, and 16 838 (11.6%) as inappropriate. The majority of inappropriate PCIs for nonacute indications were performed in patients with no angina (53.8%), low-risk ischemia on noninvasive stress testing (71.6%), or suboptimal (≤1 medication) antianginal therapy (95.8%). Furthermore, although variation in the proportion of inappropriate PCI across hospitals was minimal for acute procedures, there was substantial hospital variation for nonacute procedures (median hospital rate for inappropriate PCI, 10.8%; interquartile range, 6.0%-16.7%).

Conclusions In this large contemporary US cohort, nearly all acute PCIs were classified as appropriate. For nonacute indications, however, 12% were classified as inappropriate, with substantial variation across hospitals.