Islam Y Elgendy1, Ahmed Mahmoud2, Jonathan J Shuster3, Rami Doukky4, David E Winchester5. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Rd, PO Box 100277, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Department of Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Division of Cardiology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Rd, PO Box 100277, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. david.winchester@medicine.ufl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between inappropriate MPI and cardiovascular outcomes is poorly understood. We sought to systematically review the literature on appropriate use criteria (AUC) for MPI, including temporal trend of inappropriate testing and resulting cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database for studies related to AUC and MPI. The co-primary outcomes were abnormal test results and the presence of cardiac ischemia. Random effects odds ratios (OR) were constructed using DerSimonian-Laird method. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies with 23,443 patients were included. The prevalence of inappropriate testing was 14.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.6%-18.7%]. Inappropriate MPI studies were less likely to be abnormal (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.35-0.49, P < .0001) and to demonstrate ischemia (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, P < .0001) compared to appropriate testing. No difference in the rate of inappropriate tests was detected based on the midpoint of the enrollment year (P = .54). The pattern of ordering inappropriate studies was not different between cardiology and non-cardiology providers (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51-1.06, P = .10). CONCLUSION: Inappropriate MPI studies are less likely to yield abnormal results or demonstrate myocardial ischemia. The rate of inappropriate MPI has not decreased over time.
BACKGROUND: The relationship between inappropriate MPI and cardiovascular outcomes is poorly understood. We sought to systematically review the literature on appropriate use criteria (AUC) for MPI, including temporal trend of inappropriate testing and resulting cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database for studies related to AUC and MPI. The co-primary outcomes were abnormal test results and the presence of cardiac ischemia. Random effects odds ratios (OR) were constructed using DerSimonian-Laird method. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies with 23,443 patients were included. The prevalence of inappropriate testing was 14.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.6%-18.7%]. Inappropriate MPI studies were less likely to be abnormal (OR 0.41 95% CI 0.35-0.49, P < .0001) and to demonstrate ischemia (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, P < .0001) compared to appropriate testing. No difference in the rate of inappropriate tests was detected based on the midpoint of the enrollment year (P = .54). The pattern of ordering inappropriate studies was not different between cardiology and non-cardiology providers (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51-1.06, P = .10). CONCLUSION: Inappropriate MPI studies are less likely to yield abnormal results or demonstrate myocardial ischemia. The rate of inappropriate MPI has not decreased over time.
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: 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: Omosalewa O Lalude; Mell F Gutarra; Eduardo N Pollono; Soyoung Lee; Patrick M Tarwater Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Firas J Al Badarin; Paul S Chan; John A Spertus; Randall C Thompson; Krishna K Patel; Kevin F Kennedy; Timothy M Bateman Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 6.875
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: Daniel Cordiner; Mohammad Al-Ani; Xiaoming Jia; Michael Marchick; Brandon Allen; David E Winchester Journal: Coron Artery Dis Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.439
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