A comparison of angina symptoms reported by clinicians and patients, pre and post revascularisation: Insights from the Stent or Surgery Trial

• Published in: International journal of cardiology Vol. 293; pp. 25 - 31
• Main Authors: Kemp, I., Appleby, C., Lane, S., Lisboa, P., Stables, R.H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 15.10.2019
• Subjects: Angina; Patient-reported outcomes; PROM; Revascularisation; Revascularisation; Angina; Patient-reported outcomes; PROM
• ISSN: 0167-5273; 1874-1754
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.06.052

There are limited data comparing the consistency of angina reporting by patients and clinicians. We performed a retrospective analysis of data from the randomised Stent or Surgery (SoS) trial. The trial required reporting of angina using the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification by both patients and clinicians at baseline and twelve months. We compared paired observations to describe the magnitude and direction of differences in clinician and patient reporting. The difference in CCS grade was expressed as the clinician minus patient value. We also examined the proportion of trial subjects reported as being free from angina (CCS = 0) in clinician and patient reporting. Paired CCS data was available for 912 and 887 cases at baseline and 12 months respectively. At baseline, clinicians reported freedom from angina in a single case (1/912 = 0.1%) compared to 70/912 (7.7%) patients (Delta 7.6% 95% CI 5.8 to 9.3, P ≤0.001). At 12 months, the position was reversed, with clinicians reporting 639/887 (72%) angina free compared to 449/887 (50.6%) for patients (Delta −21.4 95% CI −17.1 to −25.8 P ≤ 0.001). For the reported CCS grade at follow-up, the weighted linear kappa for overall agreement was 0.312. Discordant reporting involved the clinician suggesting less angina rather than more (36% v 8% of cases). These findings have implications for our perception of previous research which has, in the main, focussed on clinician reporting. This emphasises the importance of patient reporting and a need to better understand reasons for discordance.