7 research outputs found
Clinical Evaluation of the Appropriateness Use Criteria for Single-Photon Emission-Computed Tomography: Differences by Patient Population, Physician Specialty, and Patient Outcomes
Objectives. Determine outcome of the 2005 appropriateness use criteria (AUC) for SPECT in a diverse population of patients and physicians.
Background. AUC for SPECT were the first cardiology document to identify 52 clinical indications for imaging, 49 of them for stress SPECT. AUC have been proposed as cornerstone of responsible use of perfusion imaging.
Methods. 585 consecutive patients undergoing SPECT were evaluated prospectively. Appropriateness was examined for demographic variables, clinical variables, and for physician and patient subgroups. Combined end-point of total mortality, cardiac revascularization, and cardiac admissions at 1 year post SPECT was evaluated.
Results. SPECT indications were: appropriate, 63%; uncertain, 20%; inappropriate, 14%; not assigned, 3%. Most appropriate SPECT were observed in patients with known coronary disease (72%), chest pain syndrome (89%), high pre-test likelihood of disease (100%), men (70%), inpatients (72%), and cardiovascular physicians' referrals (69%). End-point was reached in 53 patients (97.4% follow up). Unadjusted event rates were: appropriate (12%), uncertain (7.1%), inappropriate (2.4%) SPECT (P = .01).
Conclusion. Appropriateness of SPECT differs in subgroups of patients and physicians. Clinically significant outcomes occur more frequently in the appropriate stress SPECT group. Focused efforts are need for outpatients, asymptomatic patients, women, and non-cardiovascular physicians
Recommended from our members
Noninvasive Cardiovascular Risk Assessment of the Asymptomatic Diabetic Patient: The Imaging Council of the American College of Cardiology.
Increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes is well established; diabetes is associated with at least a 2-fold increased risk of coronary heart disease. Approximately two-thirds of deaths among persons with diabetes are related to cardiovascular disease. Previously, diabetes was regarded as a "coronary risk equivalent," implying a high 10-year cardiovascular risk for every diabetes patient. Following the original study by Haffner et al., multiple studies from different cohorts provided varying conclusions on the validity of the concept of coronary risk equivalency in patients with diabetes. New guidelines have started to acknowledge the heterogeneity in risk and include different treatment recommendations for diabetic patients without other risk factors who are considered to be at lower risk. Furthermore, guidelines have suggested that further risk stratification in patients with diabetes is warranted before universal treatment. The Imaging Council of the American College of Cardiology systematically reviewed all modalities commonly used for risk stratification in persons with diabetes mellitus and summarized the data and recommendations. This document reviews the evidence regarding the use of noninvasive testing to stratify asymptomatic patients with diabetes with regard to coronary heart disease risk and develops an algorithm for screening based on available data
Recommended from our members
Noninvasive Cardiovascular Risk Assessment of the Asymptomatic Diabetic Patient: The Imaging Council of the American College of Cardiology.
Increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes is well established; diabetes is associated with at least a 2-fold increased risk of coronary heart disease. Approximately two-thirds of deaths among persons with diabetes are related to cardiovascular disease. Previously, diabetes was regarded as a "coronary risk equivalent," implying a high 10-year cardiovascular risk for every diabetes patient. Following the original study by Haffner et al., multiple studies from different cohorts provided varying conclusions on the validity of the concept of coronary risk equivalency in patients with diabetes. New guidelines have started to acknowledge the heterogeneity in risk and include different treatment recommendations for diabetic patients without other risk factors who are considered to be at lower risk. Furthermore, guidelines have suggested that further risk stratification in patients with diabetes is warranted before universal treatment. The Imaging Council of the American College of Cardiology systematically reviewed all modalities commonly used for risk stratification in persons with diabetes mellitus and summarized the data and recommendations. This document reviews the evidence regarding the use of noninvasive testing to stratify asymptomatic patients with diabetes with regard to coronary heart disease risk and develops an algorithm for screening based on available data