2017 Versus 2012 Appropriate Use Criteria for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Impact on Appropriateness Ratings

Edward L. Hannan, Zaza Samadashvili, Kimberly Cozzens, Peter B. Berger, Joanna Chikwe, Alice K. Jacobs, Gary Walford, Frederick S.K. Ling, Ferdinand J. Venditti, Jeffrey Gold, Spencer B. King

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations


Objectives: The purpose of this study is to revisit cases rated as “inappropriate” in the 2012 appropriate use criteria (AUC) using the 2017 AUC. Background: AUC for coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) were released in January 2017. Earlier 2012 AUC identified a relatively high percentage of New York State patients for whom percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was rated as “inappropriate” versus optimal medical therapy alone. Methods: New York State's PCI registry was used to rate inappropriateness of patients undergoing PCI in 2014 using the 2012 and 2017 AUC, and to examine patient characteristics for patients rated differently. Results: A total of 911 of 9,261 (9.8%) patients who underwent PCI in New York State in 2014 with SIHD without prior coronary artery bypass grafting were rated as “inappropriate” using the 2012 AUC, but only 171 (1.8%) patients were rated as “rarely appropriate” (“inappropriate” in 2012 AUC terminology) using the 2017 AUC. A total of 26% of all 8,407 patients undergoing PCI in New York State with 1- to 2-vessel SIHD were without high-risk findings on noninvasive testing and were either asymptomatic or without antianginal therapy. No current or past randomized controlled trials have focused on these patients. Conclusions: The percentage of 2014 New York State PCI patients with SIHD who are rated “rarely appropriate” has decreased substantially using 2017 AUC in comparison with the older 2012 AUC. However, for many low-risk patients undergoing the procedure, the relative benefits of optimal medical therapy with and without PCI are unknown. Randomized controlled trials are needed to study these groups.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)473-478
Number of pages6
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Issue number5
StatePublished - 12 Mar 2018
Externally publishedYes


  • AUC
  • coronary revascularization appropriateness
  • percutaneous coronary intervention
  • stable ischemic heart disease


Dive into the research topics of '2017 Versus 2012 Appropriate Use Criteria for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Impact on Appropriateness Ratings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this