BACKGROUND: Today's imaging laboratories face challenges including reimbursement, prior authorization, and accreditation standards. The impact on the practice of nuclear cardiology in the United States is unknown. We conducted a survey of ASNC members to provide a snapshot of nuclear cardiology imaging laboratories in 2011. METHODS AND RESULTS: The survey identified practice patterns including personnel, volumes, protocols used, and laboratory characteristics. We employed random sampling methodology stratified geographically. The response rate was 19.5% (73/374 laboratories). A non-random survey conducted in 2001 of 25 laboratories served as a comparator. A total of 73 laboratories, representing 202 physicians and 177 technologists responded. The reported median procedural volume was 1,225 studies annually; 88.9% of laboratories were accredited. Compared with 2001, dual isotope imaging protocol use dropped from 72% to 15.6%. Five markers of quality were surveyed. Half of laboratories use the American College of Cardiology's Appropriate Use Criteria, 61% used segmental scoring, and 32% provided guidance on post-test therapeutic management. 89% perform catheterization correlations while only 33% implemented radiation dose tracking. CONCLUSIONS: This survey of ASNC members provides critical information on nuclear cardiology practice to better target and service our members' needs. These data can prove invaluable to target educational needs and inform healthcare policy of contemporary nuclear cardiology practice.
BACKGROUND: Today's imaging laboratories face challenges including reimbursement, prior authorization, and accreditation standards. The impact on the practice of nuclear cardiology in the United States is unknown. We conducted a survey of ASNC members to provide a snapshot of nuclear cardiology imaging laboratories in 2011. METHODS AND RESULTS: The survey identified practice patterns including personnel, volumes, protocols used, and laboratory characteristics. We employed random sampling methodology stratified geographically. The response rate was 19.5% (73/374 laboratories). A non-random survey conducted in 2001 of 25 laboratories served as a comparator. A total of 73 laboratories, representing 202 physicians and 177 technologists responded. The reported median procedural volume was 1,225 studies annually; 88.9% of laboratories were accredited. Compared with 2001, dual isotope imaging protocol use dropped from 72% to 15.6%. Five markers of quality were surveyed. Half of laboratories use the American College of Cardiology's Appropriate Use Criteria, 61% used segmental scoring, and 32% provided guidance on post-test therapeutic management. 89% perform catheterization correlations while only 33% implemented radiation dose tracking. CONCLUSIONS: This survey of ASNC members provides critical information on nuclear cardiology practice to better target and service our members' needs. These data can prove invaluable to target educational needs and inform healthcare policy of contemporary nuclear cardiology practice.
Authors: Véronique L Roger; Alan S Go; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; William B Borden; Dawn M Bravata; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Diane M Makuc; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Claudia S Moy; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Elsayed Z Soliman; Paul D Sorlie; Nona Sotoodehnia; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Robert C Hendel; Timothy M Bateman; Manuel D Cerqueira; Ami E Iskandrian; Jeffrey A Leppo; Brent Blackburn; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-11-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mariell Jessup; Nancy M Albert; David E Lanfear; Joann Lindenfeld; Barry M Massie; Mary Norine Walsh; Mark J Zucker Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ami E Iskandrian; Timothy M Bateman; Luiz Belardinelli; Brent Blackburn; Manuel D Cerqueira; Robert C Hendel; Hsiao Lieu; John J Mahmarian; Ann Olmsted; S Richard Underwood; João Vitola; Whedy Wang Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Gregory S Thomas; Bruce R Tammelin; George L Schiffman; Rudy Marquez; Deborah L Rice; Douglas Milikien; Vandana Mathur Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Gregory S Thomas; Randall C Thompson; Michael I Miyamoto; Tze K Ip; Deborah L Rice; Douglas Milikien; Hsiao D Lieu; Vandana S Mathur Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Viviany R Taqueti; Sharmila Dorbala; David Wolinsky; Brian Abbott; Gary V Heller; Timothy M Bateman; Jennifer H Mieres; Lawrence M Phillips; Nanette K Wenger; Leslee J Shaw Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-06-05 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: Oliver Lindner; Thomas N B Pascual; Mathew Mercuri; Wanda Acampa; Wolfgang Burchert; Albert Flotats; Philipp A Kaufmann; Anastasia Kitsiou; Juhani Knuuti; S Richard Underwood; João V Vitola; John J Mahmarian; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Nathan Better; Madan M Rehani; Ravi Kashyap; Maurizio Dondi; Diana Paez; Andrew J Einstein Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-12-19 Impact factor: 9.236