Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Agreement between physician- and patient-reported Canadian cardiovascular society scores among patients undergoing elective coronary angiography–The CATS study

  • Piia Lavikainen ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    piia.lavikainen@uef.fi

    Affiliations Heart Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland, School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

  • Juha Hartikainen,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Heart Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland, School of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

  • Heikki Miettinen,

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Heart Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland

  • Marketta Viljakainen,

    Roles Data curation, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Heart Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland

  • Janne Martikainen,

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

  • Anna-Maija Tolppanen,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

  • Risto P. Roine

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Heart Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland, Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

Abstract

The primary aim of revascularization in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is symptom relief. The severity of symptoms is usually evaluated by the physician, not by the patient. We examined the agreement between physician- and patient-reported Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) scores among patients scheduled for elective coronary angiography in a cross-sectional study. Patients (n = 650) and cardiologists evaluated the severity of angina symptoms by filling the CCS questionnaire before coronary angiography. Patients were divided into those without CAD (stenosis diameter <50%, n = 445) and those with CAD (stenosis diameter >50%, n = 205). CAD patients were further divided into three groups according to disease severity (single-, double- or triple-vessel disease). The mean age of the patients was 67.6 (9.9) years and 50.6% were women. In 51.8% (95% CI 44.5%–59.0%) of patients with CAD and 51.9% (95% CI 47.0%–56.8%) of those without, physician- and patient reported CCS scores agreed. The physician reported better CCS scores in 33.9% (95% CI 27.6%–40.7%) of patients with CAD and 36.2% (95% CI 31.8%–41.0%) of patients without CAD. The proportions of full or partial agreement between physician- and patient reported CCS scores were similar across the CAD severity groups. To summarize, we observed a significant discrepancy between the physician- and patient-reported symptom severity in patients with or without CAD scheduled for angiography. The physician underestimated the symptoms in third of the cases. Thus, patient-reported symptom severity, rather than physician’s evaluation, should be the cornerstone of treatment decisions.

Introduction

The primary indication for revascularization in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is symptom relief. Therefore, the severity of symptoms is crucial in guiding treatment decisions and in evaluating treatment effect [1]. Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) grading is the most used tool to describe the severity of angina pectoris symptoms [2]. However, CCS is usually assessed by the treating physician, not by the patient. This carries an inherent risk for bias, particularly if the effectiveness of treatment is addressed. To overcome this bias, patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) should be used for symptom evaluation [3, 4].

A recent study reported 36% agreement between physician- and patient-reported CCS scores in patients with multi-vessel CAD undergoing revascularization with CCS scores estimated after the coronary angiography [5]. We examined the agreement between physician- and patient-reported CCS scores among patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography and, thus, unaware of the result of the angiography.

Materials and methods

Altogether 650 patients scheduled for diagnostic coronary angiography (NOMESCO Classification of Surgical Procedures codes FN1AC, FN1BB, FN1BC, and FN1CC) at the Kuopio University Hospital, Finland between VI/2015 and VI/2017 filled in the CCS questionnaires (see S1 File) prior to angiography. Physicians performing the angiography evaluated patients’ CCS class before the procedure while being unaware of the patient-evaluated CCS score.

Patients were divided into those without significant CAD (stenosis diameter <50%) and those with CAD (stenosis diameter ≥50%). Those with CAD were further grouped according to the number of major coronary arteries with significant stenosis (single-, double- or triple-vessel disease).

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Savo Hospital District (numbers 3/2014, 221/2016, and 135/2017). Written informed consent was obtained from the patients as required by the Ethics Committee. The authors used only pseudonymized data.

Outcomes

Both physician- and patient-reported CCS scores were recorded with four-class accuracy [2]. Class I represents angina only in strenuous exertion, class II angina in moderate and class III in mild exertion. In class IV, angina symptoms may be present at rest.

Statistical analyses

Differences in patient characteristics were compared with Student’s t-tests and χ2-test. Differences in physician- and patient-reported CCS scores were tested with paired samples t-test.

The agreement between physician- and patient-reported scores was evaluated with Spearman correlation and by classifying the difference in scores as full agreement, or partial (one-point or two-point) disagreement. All the comparisons between physician- and patient-reported CCS scores were conducted among patients, whose both scores were available. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina).

Results

Coronary angiography revealed significant CAD in 205 of 650 (31.5%) patients (Table 1). Of them, 106 (51.7%) had single-vessel, 56 (27.3%) double-vessel and 43 (21.0%) triple-vessel diseases. Patients with CAD were older, more often men, and had a worse physician-reported mean CCS score than patients without CAD (Table 1, Fig 1). Mean physician-reported CCS score was worse in patients with triple-vessel disease compared to those with single-vessel disease. Patients with triple-vessel disease had on average worse mean self-reported CCS score than patients with single- or double-vessel disease or those without CAD.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Patient- and physician-reported CCS scores.

Statistical significances: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, and *** p<0.001 for patient- vs. physician-reported CCS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292058.g001

When comparing physician- and patient-reported mean CCS scores, the physician-reported CCS score was lower (less severe) than the patient-reported CCS score (Fig 1). This was true both for patients with or without CAD and for patients with single- or triple-vessel disease. The physician- and patient reported CCS scores agreed fully for only 51.8% (95% CI 44.5%–59.0%) of patients with CAD and for 51.9% (95% CI 47.0%–56.8%) of those without CAD (Table 2). For 33.9% (95% CI 27.6%–40.7%) of the patients with CAD and 36.2% (95% CI 31.8%–41.0%) of the patients without CAD, the physician reported at least one-point better CCS score than the patient. On the contrary, the physicians reported at least one-point worse CCS score than the patient in 14.4% (95% CI 10.1%–20.0%) of patients with CAD and 11.8% (95% CI 9.1%–15.3%) of those without CAD.

thumbnail
Table 2. Agreement between patient- and physician-reported CCS scores.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292058.t002

The correlation coefficients between physician- and patient-reported CCS scores were low, 0.22 (95% CI 0.09–0.35) and 0.24 (95% CI 0.15–0.33) in patients with and without CAD, respectively. The proportions of full or partial agreement between physician- and patient reported CCS scores were similar across the CAD severity categories (Table 2).

Discussion

We demonstrated a significant discrepancy in the severity of angina symptoms assessment between the physician and the patient. The physician- and patient-reported CCS grading agreed only in half of the cases. The physicians underestimated symptoms in one out of three patients scheduled for diagnostic coronary angiography. Similar discrepancies were observed among patients with and without CAD, and regardless of CAD severity.

The main purpose of stable CAD treatment is angina relief. Thus, the patient’s assessment of symptoms is crucial when considering the therapeutic options. However, the symptom severity is evaluated and interpreted by the physician. The agreement between physician- and patient-rated CCS (51.9%) in our study is in line with Kemp et al., who reported 36.3% agreement between the physician- and patient-reported CCS scores in patients with multi-vessel CAD and undergoing revascularization [5]. However, in that study the physicians overestimated the symptoms in 37.8% of patients, whereas in our study the physicians underestimated the symptoms in 35.4% of patients. Importantly, in that study [5], both the physician and the patients were aware of the presence of multivessel CAD, and the treatment decision had already been made. By contrast, in our study the CCS scores were evaluated before angiography when both the physician and the patient were unaware of the angiography result.

The awareness of the presence of CAD and the need for revascularization may influence the assessment of symptom severity, particularly by the physician. In a study comparing physician- and patient-estimated angina in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) 35% of patients undergoing elective PCI and 12% of those scheduled for urgent PCI reported no angina preoperatively [6]. However, the physician estimated that 20% of the symptom-free patients scheduled for elective PCI and 12% of those scheduled for urgent PCI had moderate to severe angina.

Our results agree also with the APPREAR study [7, 8]. It compared patient-reported severity of angina using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and physician-assessed angina severity utilizing structured questions on, for example, angina frequency among CAD patients in cardiology outpatient clinics. The physician missed 42% of patients reporting angina during previous month [7], and of patients with daily or weekly angina, 26% were assessed as being free of angina by the physician [8]. However, these studies applied SAQ, typically used for research, not CCS which is the most used angina scoring tool in clinical practise.

The agreement between physician- and patient-estimated CCS score in our study (52%) is close to the agreement (54%) reported between two cardiologists assessing symptom severity among heart failure patients using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) grading [9]. The disagreement between the physicians was related to problems in distinguishing patients belonging to NYHA classes II and III. In our study, the disagreement between patient- and physician-reported symptom severity was evident in all CCS classes and most pronounced in the extremities of the disease severity scale (CCS classes I and IV). In our study, 18% of physicians, but 10% of patients classified symptom severity as mild (class I), whereas angina at rest (CCS class IV) was reported by 11% of the patients, but only by 1% of the physicians.

The differences between patient- and physician-evaluated CCS scores may partially arise from possible limitations of CCS related to inter- and intra-rater reproducibility, content validity and lack of sensitivity to differentiate between all levels of angina symptoms [10]. Still, our results demonstrate an important discrepancy between the two ratings and highlight that the symptoms should be evaluated by the patient herself/himself, not by the physician.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated that assessment of patients’ health and symptoms should come directly from the patient without interpretation by a clinician or a healthcare provider [11]. The added value of PROMs is that they support patient-provider engagement by assessing the severity of symptoms, providing additional means for tracking the effect of treatments, informing treatment decisions, and monitoring general health and well-being. Further, the process of self-reporting per se can improve symptom management, quality of life, communication, and satisfaction with care [4, 12]. Therefore, patient-reported symptom severity should be more efficiently incorporated into practice.

A strength is that the CCS scores were recorded before angiography. Thus, the result of the invasive examination did not influence the assessment of symptom severity.

Selection bias is a potential limitation of our study. Only patients with both physician- and self-reported CCS scores were included. The response rate in an earlier study in patients scheduled for elective angiography and PCI in the Kuopio University Hospital was circa 40% [13]. Typically, the most comorbid and oldest patients are least prone to answer surveys [12]. However, this does not impact the conclusion of our study.

Conclusion

To conclude, our results show that physicians are prone to underestimate patients’ symptoms. When the primary aim of treatment is symptom relief, as it is in stable CAD, self-reported symptom assessment, rather than physician’s evaluation, should be the cornerstone of treatment decisions.

Supporting information

References

  1. 1. Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning AP, Jenkinson C. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5707. pmid:21041324
  2. 2. Campeau L. Grading of angina pectoris. Circulation. 1976;54(3):522–3.
  3. 3. Ayton DR, Barker AL, Peeters G, Berkovic DE, Lefkovits J, Brennan A, et al. Exploring patient-reported outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention: A qualitative study. Health Expect. 2018;21(2):457–65. pmid:29130585
  4. 4. Lavallee DC, Chenok KE, Love RM, Petersen C, Holve E, Segal CD, et al. Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Health Care To Engage Patients And Enhance Care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(4):575–82. pmid:27044954
  5. 5. Kemp I, Appleby C, Lane S, Lisboa P, Stables RH. A comparison of angina symptoms reported by clinicians and patients, pre and post revascularisation: Insights from the Stent or Surgery Trial. Int J Cardiol. 2019;293:25–31. pmid:31281046
  6. 6. Saxon JT, Chan PS, Tran AT, Angraal S, Jones PG, Grantham JA, et al. Comparison of Patient-Reported vs Physician-Estimated Angina in Patients Undergoing Elective and Urgent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e207406. pmid:32558912
  7. 7. Arnold SV, Grodzinsky A, Gosch KL, Kosiborod M, Jones PG, Breeding T, et al. Predictors of physician under-recognition of angina in outpatients with stable coronary artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9(5):554–9. pmid:27531922
  8. 8. Shafiq A, Arnold SV, Gosch K, Kureshi F, Breeding T, Jones PG, et al. Patient and physician discordance in reporting symptoms of angina among stable coronary artery disease patients: Insights from the Angina Prevalence and Provider Evaluation of Angina Relief (APPEAR) study. Am Heart J. 2016;175:94–100. pmid:27179728
  9. 9. Raphael C, Briscoe C, Davies J, Ian Whinnett Z, Manisty C, Sutton R, et al. Limitations of the New York Heart Association functional classification system and self-reported walking distances in chronic heart failure. Heart. 2007;93(4):476–82. pmid:17005715
  10. 10. Dagenais GR, Armstrong PW, Théroux P, Naylor CD; CCS Ad Hoc Committee for Revising the CCS Grading of Stable Angina. Revisiting the Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading of stable angina pectoris after a quarter of a century of use. Can J Cardiol. 2002;18(9):941–4.
  11. 11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. Published December, 2009. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf. Accessed June 17, 2019.
  12. 12. Basch E, Spertus J, Dudley RA, Wu A, Chuahan C, Cohen P, et al. Methods for Developing Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measures (PRO-PMs). Value Health. 2015;18(4):493–504. pmid:26091604
  13. 13. Oinasmaa S, Heiskanen J, Hartikainen J, Hippeläinen M, Miettinen H, Martikainen J, et al. Does routinely collected patient-reported outcome data represent the actual case-mix of elective coronary revascularization patients? Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2018;4(2):113–119. pmid:29045602