Document Detail


Expert panel vs decision-analysis recommendations for postdischarge coronary angiography after myocardial infarction.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  10605977     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
CONTEXT: Expert panels and decision-analytic techniques are increasingly used to determine the appropriateness of medical interventions, but these 2 approaches use different methods to process evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To compare expert panel appropriateness ratings of coronary angiography after myocardial infarction (from the time of hospital discharge to 12 weeks after infarction) with the health gains and cost-effectiveness predicted by a decision-analytic model.
DESIGN: Comparison of the degree of importance of the clinical variables considered in expert panel appropriateness ratings vs a previously published decision-analytic model. Identification of 36 clinical scenarios from the expert panel that could be simulated by the decision-analytic model.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Appropriateness score and appropriateness classification (expert panel) vs gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (decision-analytic model).
RESULTS: The most important clinical variables were similar in the 2 approaches, with the exercise tolerance test result exerting the greatest leverage on strength of recommendation for angiography. Among the expert panel clinical scenarios considered to be appropriate for coronary angiography that could be simulated in the decision-analysis model, the median (interquartile range) health gain and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were 0.59 (0.41-0.76) QALYs and $27000 ($23000-$35000) per QALY gained, respectively. Among the clinical scenarios that expert panels considered inappropriate, the corresponding medians (interquartile ranges) were 0.24 (0.19-0.34) QALYs and $54000 ($36000-$58000) per QALY gained. The Spearman rank correlation between appropriateness score and QALY gain was 0.58 (P<.001) and between appropriateness score and estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was -0.66 (P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: For the 36 expert panel scenarios that could be simulated by the decision-analytic model, there was moderate to good agreement between the appropriateness score and both the health gain and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of coronary angiography compared with no angiography in the convalescent phase of acute myocardial infarction, but several scenarios judged as inappropriate by the expert panel approach had cost-effectiveness ratios comparable with many generally recommended medical interventions. Formal synthesis of expert judgment and decision modeling is warranted in future efforts at guideline development.
Authors:
K M Kuntz; J Tsevat; M C Weinstein; L Goldman
Related Documents :
24841637 - Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in refractory cardiogenic shock: treatment ...
23103437 - Significant correlation of p-wave parameters with left atrial volume index and left ven...
24142747 - Initial timi flow ≥ 2 and pre-angiography total st-segment resolution predict an abor...
9420737 - Role of nuclear cardiology for determining management of patients with stable coronary ...
15367507 - Predicting sudden death in patients with mild to moderate chronic heart failure.
11720247 - Pheochromocytoma presenting as life-threatening pulmonary edema.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.    
Journal Detail:
Title:  JAMA     Volume:  282     ISSN:  0098-7484     ISO Abbreviation:  JAMA     Publication Date:  1999 Dec 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  1999-12-23     Completed Date:  1999-12-23     Revised Date:  2014-09-17    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  7501160     Medline TA:  JAMA     Country:  UNITED STATES    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  2246-51     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adult
Aged
Coronary Angiography* / economics,  utilization
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Decision Support Techniques*
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Infarction / rehabilitation*
Patient Discharge
Practice Guidelines as Topic*
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Treatment Outcome
United States
Utilization Review*
Grant Support
ID/Acronym/Agency:
R01-HS07081/HS/AHRQ HHS

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Fecal and oral shedding of Helicobacter pylori from healthy infected adults.
Next Document:  William Osler at 150: an overview of a life.