BACKGROUND: Imaging cardiac stress test use has risen significantly, leading to the development of appropriate use criteria. Prior studies have suggested the rate of inappropriate testing is 13% to 14%, but inappropriate testing in hospitalized patients has not been well studied. HYPOTHESIS: Appropriate use of stress testing in hospitalized patients is not comparable to the ambulatory setting. METHODS: We studied 459 consecutive patients referred for imaging stress tests (nuclear imaging or stress echocardiography) at a single institution over a 6-month period. Appropriate use was determined by research cardiologists blinded to patient outcomes. RESULTS: Most tests (68%) were in patients with chest pain or possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Another 20% were for preoperative evaluation. The rate of inappropriate testing was 13%. Imaging modality did not correlate with appropriate use. Only 2% of the chest pain or possible ACS were inappropriate, compared to 49% of the preoperative exams (P < 0.001). The most common reason a test was considered inappropriate was for a low-risk patient for preoperative exam (77% of inappropriate tests). Using Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score 0 to define inappropriate testing in the possible ACS cohort might make an additional 27% inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of inappropriate use of cardiac stress testing with imaging in the inpatient setting is similar to that in the ambulatory setting. However, there is wide variation in inappropriate testing based on the indication for the test. Taking risk into consideration in possible ACS patients could result in a larger number of tests being considered inappropriate.
BACKGROUND: Imaging cardiac stress test use has risen significantly, leading to the development of appropriate use criteria. Prior studies have suggested the rate of inappropriate testing is 13% to 14%, but inappropriate testing in hospitalized patients has not been well studied. HYPOTHESIS: Appropriate use of stress testing in hospitalized patients is not comparable to the ambulatory setting. METHODS: We studied 459 consecutive patients referred for imaging stress tests (nuclear imaging or stress echocardiography) at a single institution over a 6-month period. Appropriate use was determined by research cardiologists blinded to patient outcomes. RESULTS: Most tests (68%) were in patients with chest pain or possible acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Another 20% were for preoperative evaluation. The rate of inappropriate testing was 13%. Imaging modality did not correlate with appropriate use. Only 2% of the chest pain or possible ACS were inappropriate, compared to 49% of the preoperative exams (P < 0.001). The most common reason a test was considered inappropriate was for a low-risk patient for preoperative exam (77% of inappropriate tests). Using Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score 0 to define inappropriate testing in the possible ACS cohort might make an additional 27% inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of inappropriate use of cardiac stress testing with imaging in the inpatient setting is similar to that in the ambulatory setting. However, there is wide variation in inappropriate testing based on the indication for the test. Taking risk into consideration in possible ACS patients could result in a larger number of tests being considered inappropriate.
Authors: David E Winchester; Andrew Kitchen; John C Brandt; Raman S Dusaj; Salim S Virani; Steven M Bradley; Leslee J Shaw; Rebecca J Beyth Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Andrea Sonaglioni; Elisabetta Rigamonti; Gian Luigi Nicolosi; Michele Lombardo Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 2.357
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: Sanjay Divakaran; Avinainder Singh; Ersilia M DeFilippis; Timothy W Churchill; Sarah Cuddy; Yin Ge; Ivan K Ip; Wunan Zhou; Hicham Skali; Viviany R Taqueti; Sharmila Dorbala; James Spalding; Yanqing Xu; Ramin Khorasani; Marcelo F Di Carli; Maria A Yialamas; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 3.872