BACKGROUND: Although differences in the rate of utilization of invasive cardiac procedures between Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals and other health care systems are present, noninvasive cardiac imaging use pattern has not been well studied. We evaluated the ability of the updated appropriateness use criteria (AUC) to determine utilization patterns of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and compare use between an academic practice and a VA. METHODS: One-hundred fifty stress/rest MPI studies in an academic practice and 150 at a VA hospital were retrospectively reviewed using the hierarchical approach published in the 2009 AUC. RESULTS: Less than 1% of studies were unclassified. A higher percentage of MPI were requested for inappropriate reason at the VA, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .248). In the VA, non-physicians requested significantly more inappropriate studies than physicians (26.8% vs 20.1%; P < .048). Within the academic practice non-cardiologists referred more patients for inappropriate indications than cardiologists (23.9% vs 10.1%; P = .001). Five most common inappropriate indications accounted for the vast majority of inappropriately requested MPI (77%). CONCLUSIONS: The revised 2009 AUC allow for near complete categorization of appropriateness in testing. Differences between institutions and provider types were noted and areas for improved utilization were identified.
BACKGROUND: Although differences in the rate of utilization of invasive cardiac procedures between Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals and other health care systems are present, noninvasive cardiac imaging use pattern has not been well studied. We evaluated the ability of the updated appropriateness use criteria (AUC) to determine utilization patterns of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and compare use between an academic practice and a VA. METHODS: One-hundred fifty stress/rest MPI studies in an academic practice and 150 at a VA hospital were retrospectively reviewed using the hierarchical approach published in the 2009 AUC. RESULTS: Less than 1% of studies were unclassified. A higher percentage of MPI were requested for inappropriate reason at the VA, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .248). In the VA, non-physicians requested significantly more inappropriate studies than physicians (26.8% vs 20.1%; P < .048). Within the academic practice non-cardiologists referred more patients for inappropriate indications than cardiologists (23.9% vs 10.1%; P = .001). Five most common inappropriate indications accounted for the vast majority of inappropriately requested MPI (77%). CONCLUSIONS: The revised 2009 AUC allow for near complete categorization of appropriateness in testing. Differences between institutions and provider types were noted and areas for improved utilization were identified.
Authors: Richard A Krasuski; Andrew Wang; Carole Ross; John F Bolles; Erica L Moloney; Larry P Kelly; J Kevin Harrison; Thomas M Bashore; Michael H Sketch Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; Gary R Cutter; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Linn A Abraham; Jessica S Fosse; Patricia A Carney Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert C Hendel; Daniel S Berman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Paul A Heidenreich; Robert E Henkin; Patricia A Pellikka; Gerald M Pohost; Kim A Williams Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-05-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Raymond J Gibbons; Todd D Miller; David Hodge; Lynn Urban; Philip A Araoz; Patricia Pellikka; Robert B McCully Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Angela S Koh; Jennifer L S Flores; Felix Y J Keng; Ru San Tan; Terrance S J Chua Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Siqin Ye; LeRoy E Rabbani; Christopher R Kelly; Maureen R Kelly; Matthew Lewis; Yehuda Paz; Clara L Peck; Shaline Rao; Sabahat Bokhari; Shepard D Weiner; Andrew J Einstein Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2015-01-06
Authors: Claire O'Hanlon; Christina Huang; Elizabeth Sloss; Rebecca Anhang Price; Peter Hussey; Carrie Farmer; Courtney Gidengil Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Islam Y Elgendy; Ahmed Mahmoud; Jonathan J Shuster; Rami Doukky; David E Winchester Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Ron Blankstein; Jill E Jacobs; Jonathon A Leipsic; Raymond Y Kwong; Viviany R Taqueti; Rob S B Beanlands; Jennifer H Mieres; Scott D Flamm; Thomas C Gerber; John Spertus; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Omosalewa O Lalude; Mell F Gutarra; Eduardo N Pollono; Soyoung Lee; Patrick M Tarwater Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 5.952