BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the appropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and determines patterns and variables associated with inappropriate testing. METHODS: Over a 10-month period data were collected prospectively from consecutive patients referred for MPI in four academic departments and an appropriate use grade was assigned (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate, and unclassifiable scans) according to established criteria. RESULTS: Among 3,032 referrals appropriate MPI had 72.8% of patients and 19.2% of studies were inappropriate, the remaining being uncertain (7.2%) or unclassifiable (0.8%). In multivariate analysis the asymptomatic status (odds ratio 10.7, P < .001), good functional capacity (odds ratio 1.9, P < .001), an interpretable resting electrocardiogram (odds ratio 1.8, P = .004), an age <65 years (odds ratio 1.5, P = .001) and the absence of diabetes (odds ratio 1.7, P < .001) or dyslipidemia (odds ratio 1.3, P = .014) were independent predictors of inappropriate scintigraphy. The most common indication for inappropriate testing was the assessment of asymptomatic patients <2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (38.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The appropriate use of MPI is relatively high, but a considerable proportion of inappropriate scans is noted which is associated with markers of lower risk. The most common source of inappropriate testing is the assessment of asymptomatic patients <2 years after PCI.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the appropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and determines patterns and variables associated with inappropriate testing. METHODS: Over a 10-month period data were collected prospectively from consecutive patients referred for MPI in four academic departments and an appropriate use grade was assigned (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate, and unclassifiable scans) according to established criteria. RESULTS: Among 3,032 referrals appropriate MPI had 72.8% of patients and 19.2% of studies were inappropriate, the remaining being uncertain (7.2%) or unclassifiable (0.8%). In multivariate analysis the asymptomatic status (odds ratio 10.7, P < .001), good functional capacity (odds ratio 1.9, P < .001), an interpretable resting electrocardiogram (odds ratio 1.8, P = .004), an age <65 years (odds ratio 1.5, P = .001) and the absence of diabetes (odds ratio 1.7, P < .001) or dyslipidemia (odds ratio 1.3, P = .014) were independent predictors of inappropriate scintigraphy. The most common indication for inappropriate testing was the assessment of asymptomatic patients <2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (38.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The appropriate use of MPI is relatively high, but a considerable proportion of inappropriate scans is noted which is associated with markers of lower risk. The most common source of inappropriate testing is the assessment of asymptomatic patients <2 years after PCI.
Authors: Bimal R Shah; Patricia A Cowper; Sean M O'Brien; Neil Jensen; Matthew Drawz; Manesh R Patel; Pamela S Douglas; Eric D Peterson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-10-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lee A Fleisher; Joshua A Beckman; Kenneth A Brown; Hugh Calkins; Elliott Chaikof; Kirsten E Fleischmann; William K Freeman; James B Froehlich; Edward K Kasper; Judy R Kersten; Barbara Riegel; John F Robb; Sidney C Smith; Alice K Jacobs; Cynthia D Adams; Jeffrey L Anderson; Elliott M Antman; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon A Hunt; Bruce W Lytle; Rick Nishimura; Joseph P Ornato; Richard L Page; Barbara Riegel; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-09-27 Impact factor: 29.690
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: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jersey Chen; Andrew J Einstein; Reza Fazel; Harlan M Krumholz; Yongfei Wang; Joseph S Ross; Henry H Ting; Nilay D Shah; Khurram Nasir; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-07-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; C Noel Bairey Merz; Carl J Pepine; Steven E Reis; Vera Bittner; Sheryl F Kelsey; Marian Olson; B Delia Johnson; Sunil Mankad; Barry L Sharaf; William J Rogers; Timothy R Wessel; Christopher B Arant; Gerald M Pohost; Amir Lerman; Arshed A Quyyumi; George Sopko Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-02-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: G Medolago; C Marcassa; A Alkraisheh; R Campini; A Ghilardi; R Giubbini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mauro Augusto Dos Santos; Marisa Silva Santos; Bernardo Rangel Tura; Renata Félix; Adriana Soares X Brito; Andrea De Lorenzo Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 5.952
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: Joseph A Ladapo; Saul Blecker; Michael O'Donnell; Saahil A Jumkhawala; Pamela S Douglas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew Remfry; Howard Abrams; David M Dudzinski; Rory B Weiner; R Sacha Bhatia Journal: Cardiovasc Ultrasound Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 2.062