Development and evaluation of the accuracy of an indicator of the appropriateness of interventional cardiology generated from a French registry.
Angiography
Angioplasty
Appropriateness
Practice registry
Journal
Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique
ISSN: 0778-7367
Titre abrégé: Arch Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9208826
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 May 2022
06 May 2022
Historique:
received:
15
06
2021
accepted:
25
04
2022
entrez:
7
5
2022
pubmed:
8
5
2022
medline:
8
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Development of appropriateness indicators of medical interventions has become a major quality-of-care issue, especially in the domain of interventional cardiology (IC). The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate the accuracy of an indicator of the appropriateness of interventional cardiology acts (invasive coronary angiographies (ICA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI)) in patients with coronary stable disease and silent ischemia, automated from a French registry. All ICA and PCI recorded in a Regional IC Registry (ACIRA) and operated for a stable coronary artery disease or silent ischemia from January 1st to December 31th 2013 in eight IC hospitals of Aquitaine, southwestern France, were included. The indicator was developed to reflect European guidelines. Classification of appropriateness by the indicator, measured on the registry database, was compared to the classification of a reference standard (expert judgment applied through complete record review) on a random sample of 300 interventions. Accuracy parameters were estimated. A second version of the indicator was defined, based on the analysis of false negative and positive results, and its accuracy estimated. The second indicator accuracy was: sensitivity 63.5% (95% confidence interval CI [51.7-75.3]), specificity 76.0% (95%CI [70.4-81.6]), PPV 43.0% (95% CI [33.0-53.0]) and NPV 88.0% (95% CI [83.4-92.6]). When stratified on the type of act, parameters were better for ICA alone than for PCI. Accuracy of the indicator should raise with improvement of database quality. Despite its average accuracy, it is already used as a benchmark indicator for cardiologists. It is sent annually to each IC center with value of the indicator at the region level to allow a comparison.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Development of appropriateness indicators of medical interventions has become a major quality-of-care issue, especially in the domain of interventional cardiology (IC). The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate the accuracy of an indicator of the appropriateness of interventional cardiology acts (invasive coronary angiographies (ICA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI)) in patients with coronary stable disease and silent ischemia, automated from a French registry.
METHODS
METHODS
All ICA and PCI recorded in a Regional IC Registry (ACIRA) and operated for a stable coronary artery disease or silent ischemia from January 1st to December 31th 2013 in eight IC hospitals of Aquitaine, southwestern France, were included. The indicator was developed to reflect European guidelines. Classification of appropriateness by the indicator, measured on the registry database, was compared to the classification of a reference standard (expert judgment applied through complete record review) on a random sample of 300 interventions. Accuracy parameters were estimated. A second version of the indicator was defined, based on the analysis of false negative and positive results, and its accuracy estimated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The second indicator accuracy was: sensitivity 63.5% (95% confidence interval CI [51.7-75.3]), specificity 76.0% (95%CI [70.4-81.6]), PPV 43.0% (95% CI [33.0-53.0]) and NPV 88.0% (95% CI [83.4-92.6]). When stratified on the type of act, parameters were better for ICA alone than for PCI.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Accuracy of the indicator should raise with improvement of database quality. Despite its average accuracy, it is already used as a benchmark indicator for cardiologists. It is sent annually to each IC center with value of the indicator at the region level to allow a comparison.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35524321
doi: 10.1186/s13690-022-00885-4
pii: 10.1186/s13690-022-00885-4
pmc: PMC9077814
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
132Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020 Nov 23;1(6):1168-1176
pubmed: 33363285
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Feb;7(1):19-27
pubmed: 24474625
JAMA. 2011 Jul 6;306(1):53-61
pubmed: 21730241
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011 Sep 06;8(10):544-6
pubmed: 21894177
Implement Sci. 2012 May 18;7:45
pubmed: 22607640
Heart. 2010 Oct;96(20):1617-21
pubmed: 20801780
Am J Public Health. 1972 Mar;62(3):337-42
pubmed: 5011164
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002 Apr 3;39(7):1096-103
pubmed: 11923031
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Mar 15;183:17-23
pubmed: 25662048
Heart. 2011 Aug;97(16):1293-7
pubmed: 21719554
Eur Heart J. 2014 Oct 1;35(37):2541-619
pubmed: 25173339
Circulation. 2009 Mar 10;119(9):1330-52
pubmed: 19131581
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Sep 18;15:391
pubmed: 26384648
Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2020 Mar;19(1):1-8
pubmed: 31567554
Eur Heart J. 2013 Oct;34(38):2949-3003
pubmed: 23996286
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):156-168
pubmed: 28077234
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 26;10(2):e0117172
pubmed: 25719869
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Feb 28;59(9):857-81
pubmed: 22296741