Ashish Mahajan1, Susan Bal, Harvey Hahn. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Kettering Medical Center, 3535 Southern Boulevard, Kettering, OH, 45429, USA. mahajan_82@yahoo.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate cardiac imaging has been a significant cost concern and cause of radiation burden to patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess if a smartphone application (app) based on 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging published by American College of Cardiology would be feasible at the point of order. METHODS: We evaluated stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) (N = 403) (mean age = 62.23 years; 47.89% males) over a 4 month period using a smartphone app to determine whether the study ordered was Appropriate, Inappropriate, or Uncertain per 2009 AUC. We also monitored the time needed to use the app to determine the level of appropriateness of each stress MPI. The results of the stress MPI were noted. RESULTS: Of the 403 stress MPIs evaluated, 267 (66.25%) were noted to be Appropriate, 118 (29.28%) were Inappropriate, and 13 (3.23%) were Uncertain, per AUC; 5 (1.25%) remained unclassified. Average time needed to use the app to assess each stress MPI for appropriateness was noted to be 44 (±9) seconds. Non-teaching physicians ordered 70 (38.89%) inappropriate stress MPIs as compared to 20 (23.53%) ordered by physicians on resident teaching service, and 28 (23.33%) by cardiologists (P = .0045). Among inappropriately ordered stress MPIs, 87 (42.65%) were ordered in females as compared to 31 (17.13%) in males (P < .0001). 70 (26.22%) stress MPIs among appropriately ordered were abnormal (reversible ischemia or fixed perfusion defect) as compared to 15 (12.17%) among inappropriately ordered stress MPIs (P = .0032). CONCLUSION: A free and convenient smartphone app provides an easy-to-use tool to assist physicians in determining the level of appropriateness of stress MPI in a time- and cost-effective manner at the point of order. The smartphone app may have potential to promote the usage of the AUC and possibly aid reduction of healthcare cost and ionizing radiation burden.
BACKGROUND: Inappropriate cardiac imaging has been a significant cost concern and cause of radiation burden to patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess if a smartphone application (app) based on 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging published by American College of Cardiology would be feasible at the point of order. METHODS: We evaluated stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) (N = 403) (mean age = 62.23 years; 47.89% males) over a 4 month period using a smartphone app to determine whether the study ordered was Appropriate, Inappropriate, or Uncertain per 2009 AUC. We also monitored the time needed to use the app to determine the level of appropriateness of each stress MPI. The results of the stress MPI were noted. RESULTS: Of the 403 stress MPIs evaluated, 267 (66.25%) were noted to be Appropriate, 118 (29.28%) were Inappropriate, and 13 (3.23%) were Uncertain, per AUC; 5 (1.25%) remained unclassified. Average time needed to use the app to assess each stress MPI for appropriateness was noted to be 44 (±9) seconds. Non-teaching physicians ordered 70 (38.89%) inappropriate stress MPIs as compared to 20 (23.53%) ordered by physicians on resident teaching service, and 28 (23.33%) by cardiologists (P = .0045). Among inappropriately ordered stress MPIs, 87 (42.65%) were ordered in females as compared to 31 (17.13%) in males (P < .0001). 70 (26.22%) stress MPIs among appropriately ordered were abnormal (reversible ischemia or fixed perfusion defect) as compared to 15 (12.17%) among inappropriately ordered stress MPIs (P = .0032). CONCLUSION: A free and convenient smartphone app provides an easy-to-use tool to assist physicians in determining the level of appropriateness of stress MPI in a time- and cost-effective manner at the point of order. The smartphone app may have potential to promote the usage of the AUC and possibly aid reduction of healthcare cost and ionizing radiation burden.
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: Fay Y Lin; Allison M Dunning; Jagat Narula; Leslee J Shaw; Heidi Gransar; Daniel S Berman; James K Min Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Grace Ronan; 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 Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Anna Lucia Spear King; Mariana King Pádua; Lucio Lage Gonçalves; Aline Santana de Souza Martins; Antonio Egidio Nardi Journal: Digit Health Date: 2020-11-30
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