Cited by 44Coronary Interventions and DiagnosticsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHeart rate and cardiovascular health

Effect of angina under-recognition on treatment in outpatients with stable ischaemic heart disease

Open access
Qintar, Mohammed, Spertus, John A., Gosch, Kensey L., Beltrame, John, Kureshi, Faraz, Shafiq, Ali, Breeding, Tracie, Alexander, Karen P. +1 more·2016·European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes

Abstract

AIMS: Almost a third of outpatients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) report having angina in the prior month, which is frequently under-recognized by their cardiologists. Whether under-recognition is associated with less treatment escalation to control angina, and potential underuse of treatment, is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with CAD from 25 US cardiology outpatient practices completed the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) prior to their clinic visit, and angina was categorized as daily, weekly, monthly and no angina. Cardiologists (n=155) independently quantified patients' angina, blinded to patients' SAQ scores. Under-recognition was defined as the physician reporting a lower category of angina frequency than the patient. Among 1257 patients with CAD, 411 reported angina in the past month, of whom 178 (43.3%) patients were under-recognized. Treatment escalation-defined as intensification (up-titration or addition) of antianginal medications, referral for diagnostic testing or revascularization, or hospital admission-occurred in 106 (25.8%) patients with angina. Patients with under-recognized angina were less likely to get treatment escalation than patients whose angina was appropriately recognized (8.4% vs 39.1%, P<0.001). In a hierarchical multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the burden of angina, under-recognition remained strongly associated with a lack of treatment escalation (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.21, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Under-recognition of angina in cardiology outpatient practices is associated with less aggressive treatment escalation and may lead to poorer angina control. Standardizing clinical recognition of angina using validated tools could reduce under-recognition of angina, facilitate treatment, and potentially improve outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcw016

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qintar, M., Spertus, J. A., Gosch, K. L., Beltrame, J., Kureshi, F., Shafiq, A., Breeding, T., Alexander, K. P., & Arnold, S. V.
Affiliations
  • Saint Luke's Hospital (US)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Qintar, Mohammed
Venue
European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes
Published
2016-03-25
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
208-214
ISSN
  • 2058-1742 (ISSN-L)
  • 2058-5225
OpenAlex
W2316929311
Cited by
44
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Gilead Sciences
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (T32HL110837)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart rate and cardiovascular health
Keywords
stable ischaemic heart disease, stable coronary artery disease, angina frequency, treatment escalation, patient-physician agreement, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, outpatients, revascularization, diagnostic testing
MeSH terms
Cardiologists, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Angina Pectoris, Cardiovascular Agents, Clinical Competence, Coronary Artery Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Practice Patterns, Physicians', United States, Prevalence, Myocardial Ischemia, Quality Indicators, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review