Assessing the appropriateness of coronary revascularization: the University of Maryland Revascularization Appropriateness Score (RAS) and its comparison to RAND expert panel ratings and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines with regard to assigned appropriateness rating and ability to predict outcome.
BACKGROUND: Significant regional variation in procedural frequencies has led to the development of the RAND and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines; however, they may be difficult to apply in clinical practice. The University of Maryland Revascularization Appropriateness Score (RAS) was created to address the need for a simplified point scoring system. HYPOTHESIS: The study was undertaken to compare revascularization appropriateness ratings yielded by the RAND Expert Panel Ratings, ACC/AHA guidelines, and the University of Maryland RAS. METHODS: We applied these three revascularization appropriateness scoring systems to 153 catheterization laboratory patients with a variety of cardiac diagnoses and treatments. For each patient, appropriateness scores assigned by each of the three systems were compared with each other and with the actual treatment delivered. Concordance of care with appropriateness score was then correlated with outcome. RESULTS: There were significant differences among all three scoring systems in their ratings and in the concordance of treatment with appropriateness rating. When treatment provided was concordant with RAND ratings, there was a lower occurrence of subsequent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the composite end point of either CABG or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), and the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or revascularization. When treatment was concordant with the ACC/AHA guidelines, there was lower occurrence of all-cause mortality, PTCA, the composite end point of either CABG or PTCA, and the composite end point of death, MI, or revascularization. When treatment provided was concordant with the RAS, there was lower occurrence of cardiac death, all-cause death, CABG, the composite end point of either CABG or PTCA, and the composite end point of death, MI, or revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: The RAS is a simple scoring system to assess revascularization appropriateness. When the RAND, ACC/AHA, and RAS systems are compared in a catheterization laboratory population, they rate the same patient differently and vary in their correlation of appropriateness rating with outcome.