Table of Contents
ISRN Cardiology
Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 798318, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/798318
Clinical Study

Clinical Evaluation of the Appropriateness Use Criteria for Single-Photon Emission-Computed Tomography: Differences by Patient Population, Physician Specialty, and Patient Outcomes

1Department of Cardiology, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, New York, NY 11030-3816, USA
2Division of Cardiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA
3Feinstein Institute of Biomedical Research, Graduate Clinical Research Center, Manhasset, New York, NY 11030, USA

Received 14 March 2011; Accepted 4 April 2011

Academic Editor: A. Ganau

Copyright © 2011 Regina S. Druz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives. Determine outcome of the 2005 appropriateness use criteria (AUC) for SPECT in a diverse population of patients and physicians. Background. AUC for SPECT were the first cardiology document to identify 52 clinical indications for imaging, 49 of them for stress SPECT. AUC have been proposed as cornerstone of responsible use of perfusion imaging. Methods. 585 consecutive patients undergoing SPECT were evaluated prospectively. Appropriateness was examined for demographic variables, clinical variables, and for physician and patient subgroups. Combined end-point of total mortality, cardiac revascularization, and cardiac admissions at 1 year post SPECT was evaluated. Results. SPECT indications were: appropriate, 63%; uncertain, 20%; inappropriate, 14%; not assigned, 3%. Most appropriate SPECT were observed in patients with known coronary disease (72%), chest pain syndrome (89%), high pre-test likelihood of disease (100%), men (70%), inpatients (72%), and cardiovascular physicians' referrals (69%). End-point was reached in 53 patients (97.4% follow up). Unadjusted event rates were: appropriate (12%), uncertain (7.1%), inappropriate (2.4%) SPECT ( 𝑃 = . 0 1 ). Conclusion. Appropriateness of SPECT differs in subgroups of patients and physicians. Clinically significant outcomes occur more frequently in the appropriate stress SPECT group. Focused efforts are need for outpatients, asymptomatic patients, women, and non-cardiovascular physicians.