Radiological informed consent in cardiovascular imaging: towards the medico-legal perfect storm?

Use of radiation for medical examinations and tests is the largest manmade source of radiation exposure. No one can doubt the immense clinical and scientific benefits of imaging to the modern practice of medicine. Every radiological and nuclear medicine examination confers a definite (albeit low) long-term risk of cancer, but patients undergoing such examinations often receive no or inaccurate information about radiological dose exposure and corresponding risk directly related to the radiological dose received. Too detailed information on radiological dose and risk may result in undue anxiety, but information "economical with the truth" may violate basic patients' rights well embedded in ethics (Oviedo convention 1997) and law (97/43 Euratom Directive 1997). Informed consent is a procedure needed to establish a respectful and ethical relation between doctors and patients. Nevertheless, in an "ideal" consent process, the principle of patient autonomy in current radiological practice might be reinforced by making it mandatory to obtain explicit and transparent informed consent form for radiological examination with high exposure (≥ 500 chest x-rays). The form may spell-out the type of examination, the exposure in effective dose (mSv), derived from reference values in guidelines or – better – from actual values from their department. The dose equivalent might be also expressed in number of chest radiographs and the risk of cancer as number of extra cases in the exposed population, derived from most recent and authorative guidelines (e.g., BEIR VII Committee, release 2006). Common sense, deontological code, patients'rights, medical imaging guidelines, Euratom law, all coherently and concordantly encourage and recommend a justified, optimized, responsible and informed use of testing with ionizing radiation. Although the idea of informed consent for radiation dose does not seem to be on the immediate radar screen at least in the US, the current practice clashes against these guidelines and laws

Economic analysis including long-term risks and costs of alternative diagnostic strategies to evaluate patients with chest pain

Background: Diagnosis costs for cardiovascular disease waste a large amount of healthcare resources. The aim of the study is to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of alternative diagnostic strategies in low risk chest pain patients. Methods: We evaluated direct and indirect downstream costs of 6 strategies: coronary angiography (CA) after positive troponin I or T (cTn-I or cTnT) (strategy 1); after positive exercise electrocardiography (ex-ECG) (strategy 2); after positive exercise echocardiography (ex-Echo) (strategy 3); after positive pharmacologic stress echocardiography (PhSE) (strategy 4); after positive myocardial exercise stress single-photon emission computed tomography with technetium Tc 99m sestamibi (ex-SPECT-Tc) (strategy 5) and direct CA (strategy 6). Results: The predictive accuracy in correctly identifying the patients was 83,1% for cTn-I, 87% for cTn-T, 85,1% for ex-ECG, 93,4% for ex-Echo, 98,5% for PhSE, 89,4% for ex-SPECT-Tc and 18,7% for CA. The cost per patient correctly identified results $2.051 for cTn-I,$2.086 for cTn-T, $1.890 for ex-ECG,$803 for ex-Echo, $533 for PhSE,$1.521 for ex-SPECT-Tc ($1.634 including cost of extra risk of cancer) and$29.673 for CA ($29.999 including cost of extra risk of cancer). The average relative cost-effectiveness of cardiac imaging compared with the PhSE equal to 1 (as a cost comparator), the relative cost of ex-Echo is 1.5×, of a ex-SPECT-Tc is 3.1×, of a ex-ECG is 3.5×, of cTnI is ×3.8, of cTnT is ×3.9 and of a CA is 56.3×. Conclusion: Stress echocardiography based strategies are cost-effective versus alternative imaging strategies and the risk and cost of radiation exposure is void