BACKGROUND: A multi-society document outlining appropriateness criteria for cardiac CT (CCT) was published in 2006. Since then, CCT has experienced rapid growth in technologic advances and clinical use. We sought to reassess opinion about the appropriate use of CCT among an international group of experts in the field. METHODS: Seventy-two international experts in the field of CCT independently rated all 39 indications listed in the original 2006 appropriateness statement. Indications were classified as either "appropriate," "uncertain," or "inappropriate" based on an assessment of the clinical balance between risk and benefit to the patient in daily practice. Median rater scores were considered to represent current opinion for each indication and were compared with the original value in the 2006 document. RESULTS: Survey respondents averaged 5.8+/-4.1 years of CCT experience, with a median total of 1200 contrast-enhanced CCT examinations performed and interpreted. Cardiologists (40; 55.6%) and radiologists (32; 44.4%) were included. Five of 12 previously "uncertain" indications shifted to "appropriate," resulting in a total of 18 "appropriate" of 39 possible indications. Conversely, all previously "appropriate" indications remained so. Among the 14 previously "inappropriate" indications, 10 shifted to "uncertain," none to "appropriate." Overall, 26 of 39 indications showed increased appropriateness scores (range of shift, 1-4 points; median value, 1; interquartile range, 0-2). No significant differences were observed between US and non-US expert respondents or between cardiology and radiology respondents in the overall appropriateness category ratings. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the 2006 Appropriateness Criteria, opinion regarding clinical use of CCT has experienced a significant shift toward appropriateness across most indications, similarly judged among international cardiology and radiology experts in the field.
BACKGROUND: A multi-society document outlining appropriateness criteria for cardiac CT (CCT) was published in 2006. Since then, CCT has experienced rapid growth in technologic advances and clinical use. We sought to reassess opinion about the appropriate use of CCT among an international group of experts in the field. METHODS: Seventy-two international experts in the field of CCT independently rated all 39 indications listed in the original 2006 appropriateness statement. Indications were classified as either "appropriate," "uncertain," or "inappropriate" based on an assessment of the clinical balance between risk and benefit to the patient in daily practice. Median rater scores were considered to represent current opinion for each indication and were compared with the original value in the 2006 document. RESULTS: Survey respondents averaged 5.8+/-4.1 years of CCT experience, with a median total of 1200 contrast-enhanced CCT examinations performed and interpreted. Cardiologists (40; 55.6%) and radiologists (32; 44.4%) were included. Five of 12 previously "uncertain" indications shifted to "appropriate," resulting in a total of 18 "appropriate" of 39 possible indications. Conversely, all previously "appropriate" indications remained so. Among the 14 previously "inappropriate" indications, 10 shifted to "uncertain," none to "appropriate." Overall, 26 of 39 indications showed increased appropriateness scores (range of shift, 1-4 points; median value, 1; interquartile range, 0-2). No significant differences were observed between US and non-US expert respondents or between cardiology and radiology respondents in the overall appropriateness category ratings. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the 2006 Appropriateness Criteria, opinion regarding clinical use of CCT has experienced a significant shift toward appropriateness across most indications, similarly judged among international cardiology and radiology experts in the field.
Authors: E di Cesare; I Carbone; A Carriero; M Centonze; F De Cobelli; R De Rosa; P Di Renzi; A Esposito; R Faletti; R Fattori; M Francone; A Giovagnoni; L La Grutta; G Ligabue; L Lovato; R Marano; M Midiri; L Natale; A Romagnoli; V Russo; F Sardanelli; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Florian Wolf; Sebastian Leschka; Christian Loewe; Peter Homolka; Christina Plank; Ruediger Schernthaner; Dominik Bercaczy; Robert Goetti; Johannes Lammer; Guy Friedrich; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi; Gudrun Feuchtner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Brian Burns Ghoshhajra; Leif-Christopher Engel; Gyöngyi Petra Major; Alexander Goehler; Tust Techasith; Daniel Verdini; Synho Do; Bob Liu; Xinhua Li; Michiel Sala; Mi Sung Kim; Ron Blankstein; Priyanka Prakash; Manavjot S Sidhu; Erin Corsini; Dahlia Banerji; David Wu; Suhny Abbara; Quynh Truong; Thomas J Brady; Udo Hoffmann; Manudeep Kalra Journal: Am J Med Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Ernesto Di Cesare; Marco Francone; Giovanni Ballerini; Guido Ligabue; Erica Maffei; Andrea Romagnoli; Giovanni Maria Argiolas; Vincenzo Russo; Vitaliano Buffa; Riccardo Marano; Maria Guzzetta; Manuel Belgrano; Iacopo Carbone; Luca Macarini; Claudia Borghi; Paolo Di Renzi; Vicenzo Barile; Lucia Patriarca Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 3.469