Literature DB >> 24374980

ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use criteria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Grace Ronan1, Michael J Wolk, Steven R Bailey, John U Doherty, Pamela S Douglas, Robert C Hendel, Christopher M Kramer, James K Min, Manesh R Patel, Lisa Rosenbaum, Leslee J Shaw, Raymond F Stainback, Joseph M Allen, Ralph G Brindis, Christopher M Kramer, Leslee J Shaw, Manuel D Cerqueira, Jersey Chen, Larry S Dean, Reza Fazel, W Gregory Hundley, Dipti Itchhaporia, Paul Kligfield, Richard Lockwood, Joseph Edward Marine, Robert Benjamin McCully, Joseph V Messer, Patrick T O'Gara, Richard J Shemin, L Samuel Wann, John B Wong, Manesh R Patel, Christopher M Kramer, Steven R Bailey, Alan S Brown, John U Doherty, Pamela S Douglas, Robert C Hendel, Bruce D Lindsay, James K Min, Leslee J Shaw, Raymond F Stainback, L Samuel Wann, Michael J Wolk, Joseph M Allen.   

Abstract

The American College of Cardiology Foundation along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical presentations for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) to consider use of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures. This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging (RNI), stress echocardiography (Echo), calcium scoring, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and invasive coronary angiography for SIHD. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine the AUC on a frequent basis. A major innovation in this document is the rating of tests side by side for the same indication. The side-by-side rating removes any concerns about differences in indication or interpretation stemming from prior use of separate documents for each test. However, the ratings were explicitly not competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and range of capabilities available in any given local setting. The indications for this review are limited to the detection and risk assessment of SIHD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Eighty clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate rating panel on a scale of 1-9, to designate Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate use following a modified Delphi process following the recently updated AUC development methodology. The use of some modalities of testing in the initial evaluation of patients with symptoms representing ischemic equivalents, newly diagnosed heart failure, arrhythmias, and syncope was generally found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate, except in cases where low pre-test probability or low risk limited the benefit of most testing except exercise electrocardiogram (ECG). Testing for the evaluation of new or worsening symptoms following a prior test or procedure was found to be Appropriate. In addition, testing was found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate for patients within 90 days of an abnormal or uncertain prior result. Pre-operative testing was rated Appropriate or May Be Appropriate only for patients who had poor functional capacity and were undergoing vascular or intermediate risk surgery with 1 or more clinical risk factors or an organ transplant. The exercise ECG was suggested as an Appropriate test for cardiac rehabilitation clearance or for exercise prescription purposes. Testing in asymptomatic patients was generally found to be Rarely Appropriate, except for calcium scoring and exercise testing in intermediate and high-risk individuals and either stress or anatomic imaging in higher-risk individuals, which were all rated as May Be Appropriate. All modalities of follow-up testing after a prior test or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 2 years and within 5 years after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in the absence of new symptoms were rated Rarely Appropriate. Pre-operative testing for patients with good functional capacity, prior normal testing within 1 year, or prior to low-risk surgery also were found to be Rarely Appropriate. Imaging for an exercise prescription or prior to the initiation of cardiac rehabilitation was Rarely Appropriate except for cardiac rehabilitation clearance for heart failure patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24374980     DOI: 10.1007/s12350-013-9841-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol        ISSN: 1071-3581            Impact factor:   5.952


  49 in total

1.  American Society of Echocardiography recommendations for quality echocardiography laboratory operations.

Authors:  Michael H Picard; David Adams; S Michelle Bierig; John M Dent; Pamela S Douglas; Linda D Gillam; Andrew M Keller; David J Malenka; Frederick A Masoudi; Marti McCulloch; Patricia A Pellikka; Priscilla J Peters; Raymond F Stainback; G Monet Strachan; William A Zoghbi
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 5.251

2.  Letter: Grading of angina pectoris.

Authors:  L Campeau
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1976-09       Impact factor: 29.690

3.  MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial.

Authors:  Juerg Schwitter; Christian M Wacker; Norbert Wilke; Nidal Al-Saadi; Ekkehart Sauer; Kalman Huettle; Stefan O Schönberg; Andreas Luchner; Oliver Strohm; Hakan Ahlstrom; Thorsten Dill; Nadja Hoebel; Tamas Simor
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-03-04       Impact factor: 29.983

4.  A clinically relevant classification of chest discomfort.

Authors:  G A Diamond
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Role of noninvasive testing in the clinical evaluation of women with suspected coronary artery disease: Consensus statement from the Cardiac Imaging Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, American Heart Association.

Authors:  Jennifer H Mieres; Leslee J Shaw; Andrew Arai; Matthew J Budoff; Scott D Flamm; W Gregory Hundley; Thomas H Marwick; Lori Mosca; Ayan R Patel; Miguel A Quinones; Rita F Redberg; Kathryn A Taubert; Allen J Taylor; Gregory S Thomas; Nanette K Wenger
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-02-01       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  Radiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Authors:  Charles E Chambers; Kenneth A Fetterly; Ralf Holzer; Pei-Jan Paul Lin; James C Blankenship; Stephen Balter; Warren K Laskey
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 7.  Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance for detection of coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Michèle Hamon; Georges Fau; Guillaume Née; Javed Ehtisham; Rémy Morello; Martial Hamon
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 5.364

8.  Prognostic implications of asymptomatic ventricular arrhythmias: the Framingham Heart Study.

Authors:  M Bikkina; M G Larson; D Levy
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1992-12-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Estimating the likelihood of significant coronary artery disease.

Authors:  D B Pryor; F E Harrell; K L Lee; R M Califf; R A Rosati
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 10.  Diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kiran R Nandalur; Ben A Dwamena; Asim F Choudhri; Mohan R Nandalur; Ruth C Carlos
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2007-09-17       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  Review of cardiovascular imaging in The Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2014: Part 2 of 2: Myocardial perfusion imaging.

Authors:  Fadi G Hage; Wael A AlJaroudi
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Effect of changes in perfusion defect size during serial regadenoson myocardial perfusion imaging on cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients.

Authors:  Stephanie El-Hajj; Wael A AlJaroudi; Ayman Farag; Steven Bleich; Padma Manaoragada; Ami E Iskandrian; Fadi G Hage
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Status of cardiovascular PET radiation exposure and strategies for reduction: An Information Statement from the Cardiovascular PET Task Force.

Authors:  James A Case; Robert A deKemp; Piotr J Slomka; Mark F Smith; Gary V Heller; Manuel D Cerqueira
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Coronary artery calcium scanning in symptomatic patients: Ready for use as a gatekeeper for further testing?

Authors:  Alan Rozanski; Daniel S Berman
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Myocardial perfusion imaging determination using an appropriate use smartphone application.

Authors:  Ashish Mahajan; Susan Bal; Harvey Hahn
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Do we need diagnostic strategies enhanced with genetic information for ischemic heart disease?

Authors:  Pierre-Yves Marie; Sophie Visvikis-Siest
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 5.952

7.  Case Presentation Commentary on "Deciding wisely: A case for an effective use of myocardial perfusion imaging".

Authors:  Lawrence Phillips
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 8.  Current status of nuclear cardiology in Japan: Ongoing efforts to improve clinical standards and to establish evidence.

Authors:  Keiichiro Yoshinaga; Nagara Tamaki
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 9.  Outcomes after inappropriate nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging: A meta-analysis.

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

10.  Costs and clinical outcomes for non-invasive versus invasive diagnostic approaches to patients with suspected in-stent restenosis.

Authors:  James K Min; James T Hasegawa; Susanne F Machacz; Ken O'Day
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.