Key result
Treatment center location is linked to a ~4.2-fold variation in myocardial revascularization referrals.
Why the study?
Variation in the practice and therapeutic implications of coronary arteriography between centres in the UK was not well characterized during the RITA trial recruitment.
Observational (n=33,359)
Yes
There is significant intercenter variation in the referral rates for myocardial revascularization following coronary arteriography, independent of patient clinical characteristics.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Unexplained center variation in revascularization referral warrants caution in local decision-making; leaves open need for standardization and outcome studies.
The Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial is comparing the effects of coronary artery bypass surgery and coronary angioplasty. During patient recruitment, the trial participants maintained a register of patients investigated by coronary arteriography. We used the register data to analyse variation in the practice and therapeutic implications of coronary arteriography between the 17 participating centres. Of 33,359 patients undergoing coronary arteriography, 85.2% had significant coronary artery disease (range 81.3%-89.3% between centres). The planned management for patients with coronary disease included coronary bypass surgery (43.3%), coronary angioplasty (15.7%) and RITA randomization (3.2%). The rate of referral for myocardial revascularization varied between centres from 47.6% to 83.4%. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified several correlates of myocardial revascularization, including the indication for investigation, extent of coronary disease and left ventricular function. After adjustment for these variables, the odds of revascularization at the different participating centres varied by a factor of 4.2. This intercentre variation in the use of revascularization procedures may reflect variation in the clinician's view of the appropriateness of myocardial revascularization in different clinical circumstances.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Henderson et al. (1995) conducted an observational in Coronary artery disease (n=33,359). Treatment at different participating centers vs. Other participating centers was evaluated on Referral for myocardial revascularization.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: