BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion images (SPECT-MPI) were developed to address the growth of cardiac imaging studies. However, these criteria have not been vigorously validated. We sought to determine the rate of abnormal stress SPECT-MPI studies and subsequent revascularization procedures as categorized by AUC. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 280 patients who underwent stress SPECT-MPI and categorized these studies as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain based on AUC. Data regarding subsequent angiography and revascularization within 6 months after stress SPECT-MPI were collected from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: 280 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 67.3 ± 11.4 years, 36 % female). When categorized by AUC, 62.9 % (N = 176) of stress SPECT-MPI were considered appropriate, 13.6 % (N = 38) uncertain, and 23.6 % (N = 66) inappropriate. Appropriate stress SPECT-MPI studies were more likely to have intermediate or high risk results than uncertain or inappropriate studies [40 % (N = 71) vs. 21 % (N = 8) and 18 % (N = 12), respectively; P = 0.008)]. Appropriate studies were associated with an increased rate of coronary angiography [14 % (N = 25)] compared to the uncertain (0 %) and inappropriate [3 % (N = 2)] studies (P = 0.003). There was also an increased rate of revascularization after appropriate studies [9 % (N = 16)] compared to the uncertain (0 %) and inappropriate (0 %) studies (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate stress SPECT-MPI studies are more likely to result in abnormal results requiring subsequent revascularization compared to inappropriate and uncertain stress studies. Inappropriate and uncertain stress SPECT-MPI did not lead to subsequent revascularization.
BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion images (SPECT-MPI) were developed to address the growth of cardiac imaging studies. However, these criteria have not been vigorously validated. We sought to determine the rate of abnormal stress SPECT-MPI studies and subsequent revascularization procedures as categorized by AUC. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 280 patients who underwent stress SPECT-MPI and categorized these studies as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain based on AUC. Data regarding subsequent angiography and revascularization within 6 months after stress SPECT-MPI were collected from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: 280 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 67.3 ± 11.4 years, 36 % female). When categorized by AUC, 62.9 % (N = 176) of stress SPECT-MPI were considered appropriate, 13.6 % (N = 38) uncertain, and 23.6 % (N = 66) inappropriate. Appropriate stress SPECT-MPI studies were more likely to have intermediate or high risk results than uncertain or inappropriate studies [40 % (N = 71) vs. 21 % (N = 8) and 18 % (N = 12), respectively; P = 0.008)]. Appropriate studies were associated with an increased rate of coronary angiography [14 % (N = 25)] compared to the uncertain (0 %) and inappropriate [3 % (N = 2)] studies (P = 0.003). There was also an increased rate of revascularization after appropriate studies [9 % (N = 16)] compared to the uncertain (0 %) and inappropriate (0 %) studies (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate stress SPECT-MPI studies are more likely to result in abnormal results requiring subsequent revascularization compared to inappropriate and uncertain stress studies. Inappropriate and uncertain stress SPECT-MPI did not lead to subsequent revascularization.
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Thomas H Marwick; William A Zoghbi; W Gregory Hundley; Christopher M Kramer; Stephan Achenbach; Vasken Dilsizian; Morton J Kern; Y Chandrashekhar; Jagat Narula Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-07
Authors: Ralph G Brindis; Pamela S Douglas; Robert C Hendel; Eric D Peterson; Michael J Wolk; Joseph M Allen; Manesh R Patel; Ira E Raskin; Robert C Hendel; Timothy M Bateman; Manuel D Cerqueira; Raymond J Gibbons; Linda D Gillam; John A Gillespie; Robert C Hendel; Ami E Iskandrian; Scott D Jerome; Harlan M Krumholz; Joseph V Messer; John A Spertus; Stephen A Stowers Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-10-18 Impact factor: 24.094
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: R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; H Kiat; N Bairey-Merz; I Cohen; J A Cabico; J D Friedman; G Germano; K F Van Train; G A Diamond Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-11-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David E Winchester; Ryan J Chauffe; Ryan Meral; Daniel Nguyen; Scott Ryals; Raman Dusaj; Leslee Shaw; Rebecca J Beyth Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-08-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Peter L Tilkemeier; Jamieson Bourque; Rami Doukky; Rupa Sanghani; Richard L Weinberg Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-09-15 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: Jeffrey D Clough; Rahul Rajkumar; Matthew T Crim; Lesli S Ott; Nihar R Desai; Patrick H Conway; Sha Maresh; Daver C Kahvecioglu; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 5.501