Author + information
- Received May 30, 2018
- Revision received September 19, 2018
- Accepted October 30, 2018
- Published online February 4, 2019.
- Andrew Czarnecki, MD, MSca,b,c,∗ (, )
- Feng Qiu, MScb,
- Gabby Elbaz-Greener, MD, MHAa,
- Eric A. Cohen, MDa,c,
- Dennis T. Ko, MD, MSca,b,c,
- Idan Roifman, MD, MSca,b,c and
- Harindra C. Wijeysundera, MD, PhDa,b,c
- aSchulich Heart Centre, Division of Cardiology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- bInstitute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- cDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- ↵∗Address for correspondence:
Dr. Andrew Czarnecki, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, D-375, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.
Objectives The aims of this study were to assess variation in revascularization of asymptomatic patients with stable ischemic heart disease, identify the predictors of variation, and determine if it was associated with clinical outcomes.
Background Management of stable ischemic heart disease in asymptomatic patients with obstructive coronary artery disease is controversial, potentially leading to practice variation.
Methods A retrospective observational cohort study was performed using population-based data from Ontario, Canada, in patients with asymptomatic stable ischemic heart disease and obstructive coronary artery disease. The cohort was divided on the basis of treatment strategy: revascularization or medical therapy. Hospitals were allocated into tertiles of their revascularization ratio. Outcomes included death and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to assess the predictors of revascularization, with median odds ratios used to quantify variation. Proportional hazards models were used to determine the association between management strategy and outcomes.
Results The cohort included 9,897 patients, 47% treated with medical therapy and 53% with revascularization. Between hospitals, 2-fold variation existed in the ratio of revascularized to medically treated patients. However, the variation across hospitals was not explained by patient, physician, or hospital factors (median odds ratio in null model: 1.25; median odds ratio in full model: 1.31). Revascularization was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 0.96) for death and a hazard ratio of 0.58 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.73) for myocardial infarction, with this benefit consistent across tertiles of revascularization ratio.
Conclusions Wide variation was observed in revascularization practice that was not explained by known factors. Despite this variation, a clinical benefit was observed with revascularization that was consistent across hospitals.
This work was supported by a grant-in-aid from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Dr. Wijeysundera is supported by a Distinguished Clinician Scientist Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. Dr. Ko is supported by a Clinician Scientist Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Ontario Provincial Office. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
- Received May 30, 2018.
- Revision received September 19, 2018.
- Accepted October 30, 2018.
- 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation
This article requires a subscription or purchase to view the full text. If you are a subscriber or member, click Login or the Subscribe link (top menu above) to access this article.