Appropriate use criteria for optical coherence tomography guidance in percutaneous coronary interventions: Recommendations of the working group of interventional cardiology of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology

Introduction: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) enables detailed imaging of the coronary wall, lumen and intracoronary implanted devices. Responding to the lack of specific appropriate use criteria (AUC) for this technique, we conducted a literature review and a procedure for appropriate use criteria. Methods: Twenty-one of all 184 members of the Dutch Working Group on Interventional Cardiology agreed to evaluate 49 pre-specified cases. During a meeting, factual indications were established whereupon members individually rated indications on a 9-point scale, with the opportunity to substantiate their scoring. Results: Twenty-six indications were rated ‘Appropriate’, eighteen indications ‘May be appropriate’, and five ‘Rarely appropriate’. Use of OCT was unanimously considered ‘Appropriate’ in stent thrombosis, and ‘Appropriate’ for guidance in PCI, especially in distal left main coronary artery and proximal left anterior descending coronary artery, unexplained angiographic abnormalities, and use of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). OCT was considered ‘Rarely Appropriate’ on top of fractional flow reserve (FFR) for treatment indication, assessment of strut coverage, bypass anastomoses or assessment of proximal left main coronary artery. Conclusions: The use of OCT in stent thrombosis is unanimously considered ‘Appropriate’ by these experts. Varying degrees of consensus exists on the appropriate use of OCT in other settings

Hybrid myocardial perfusion SPECT/CT coronary angiography and invasive coronary angiography in patients with stable angina pectoris lead to similar treatment decisions

Objectives: To evaluate to what extent treatment decisions for patients with stable angina pectoris can be made based on hybrid myocardial perfusion single-photon emission CT (SPECT) and CT coronary angiography (CCTA). It has been shown that hybrid SPECT/CCTA has good performance in the diagnosis of significant coronary artery disease (CAD). The question remains whether these imaging results lead to similar treatment decisions as compared to standalone SPECT and invasive coronary angiography (CA). Methods: We prospectively included 107 patients (mean age 62.8±10.0 years, 69% male) with stable anginal complaints and an intermediate to high pre-test likelihood for CAD. Hybrid SPECT/CCTA was performed prior to CA in all patients. The study outcome was the treatment decision categorised as: no revascularisation, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Treatment decisions were made by two interventional cardiologists and one cardiothoracic surgeon in two steps: first, based on the results of hybrid SPECT/CCTA; second, based on SPECT and CA. Results: Revascularisation (PCI or CABG) was indicated in 54 (50%) patients based on SPECT and CA. Percentage agreement of treatment decisions in all patients based on hybrid SPECT/CCTA versus SPECT and CA on the necessity of revascularisation was 92%. Percentage agreement of treatment decisions in patients with matched, unmatched and normal hybrid SPECT/CCTA findings was 95%, 84% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: Panel evaluation shows that patients could be accurately indicated for and deferred from revascularisation based on hybrid SPECT/CCTA