Impact of Technetium-99m Sestamibi Imaging on the Emergency Department Management and Costs in the Evaluation of Low-risk Chest Pain

Objectives: To assess the impact of rest sestamibi scanning on emergency physicians' (EPs') diagnostic certainty and decision making (as assessed by the hypothetical disposition of patients) for 69 consenting stable patients with suspected acute cardiac ischemia and nondiagnostic electrocardiograms. The resultant impact on costs was examined as a secondary outcome. Methods: Patients with suspected acute cardiac ischemia were injected with 25 mCi of sestamibi within two hours of active pain in one of three emergency department study sites. The probability of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and unstable angina (UA), and hypothetical disposition decisions were recorded immediately before and after physicians were notified of scan results. Changes in disposition were classified as optimal or suboptimal. For the cost determinations, a cost-based decision support program was used. Results: For the subgroup found to be free of acute cardiac events (ACEs) ( n = 62), the EPs' post-sestamibi scan probabilities for AMI decreased by 11% and UA by 18% (p < 0.001 for both conditions). In seven patients with ACEs, the post-scan probabilities of AMI and UA increased, but neither was statistically significant. Scan results led to hypothetical disposition changes in 29 patients (42%), of which 27 (93%) were optimal (nine patients were reassigned to a lower level of care, two to a higher level, and 16 additional patients to “discharge-home” status). The strategy of scanning all patients who were low to moderate risk for acute cardiac ischemia would result in an increase of direct costs of care of $222 per patient evaluated, due to added cost of sestamibi scanning. Conclusions: Sestamibi scanning results appropriately affected the EPs' estimates of the probability of AMI and UA and improved disposition decisions. Scanning all low-risk patients would likely be associated with increased costs at this medical center.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73784/1/j.1553-2712.2001.tb02108.x.pd

Carotid Ultrasound Boundary Study (CUBS): An Open Multicenter Analysis of Computerized Intima–Media Thickness Measurement Systems and Their Clinical Impact

Common carotid intima–media thickness (CIMT) is a commonly used marker for atherosclerosis and is often computed in carotid ultrasound images. An analysis of different computerized techniques for CIMT measurement and their clinical impacts on the same patient data set is lacking. Here we compared and assessed five computerized CIMT algorithms against three expert analysts’ manual measurements on a data set of 1088 patients from two centers. Inter- and intra-observer variability was assessed, and the computerized CIMT values were compared with those manually obtained. The CIMT measurements were used to assess the correlation with clinical parameters, cardiovascular event prediction through a generalized linear model and the Kaplan–Meier hazard ratio. CIMT measurements obtained with a skilled analyst's segmentation and the computerized segmentation were comparable in statistical analyses, suggesting they can be used interchangeably for CIMT quantification and clinical outcome investigation. To facilitate future studies, the entire data set used is made publicly available for the community at http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/fpv535fss7.1

Assessment of acute myocardial infarction: current status and recommendations from the North American society for cardiovascular imaging and the European society of cardiac radiology

There are a number of imaging tests that are used in the setting of acute myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndrome. Each has their strengths and limitations. Experts from the European Society of Cardiac Radiology and the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging together with other prominent imagers reviewed the literature. It is clear that there is a definite role for imaging in these patients. While comparative accuracy, convenience and cost have largely guided test decisions in the past, the introduction of newer tests is being held to a higher standard which compares patient outcomes. Multicenter randomized comparative effectiveness trials with outcome measures are required