COVID-19 and the cardiovascular system: A review of current data, summary of best practices, outline of controversies, and illustrative case reports.

As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus pandemic continues to grow globally, an association is apparent between patients with underlying cardiovascular disease comorbidities and the risk of developing severe COVID-19. Furthermore, there are potential cardiac manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 including myocyte injury, ventricular dysfunction, coagulopathy, and electrophysiologic abnormalities. Balancing management of the infection and treatment of underlying cardiovascular disease requires further study. Addressing the increasing reports of health care worker exposure and deaths remains paramount. This review summarizes the most contemporary literature on the relationship of the cardiovascular system and COVID-19 and society statements with relevance to protection of health care workers, and provides illustrative case reports in this context.

Dose Comparison Study of Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (The TRIDENT Study).

RATIONALE: Cell dose and concentration play crucial roles in phenotypic responses to cell-based therapy for heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of allogeneic bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells identically delivered in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy received in a blinded manner either 20 million (n=15) or 100 million (n=15) allogeneic human mesenchymal stem cells via transendocardial injection (0.5 cc per injection × 10 injections per patient). Patients were followed for 12 months for safety and efficacy end points. There were no treatment-emergent serious adverse events at 30 days or treatment-related serious adverse events at 12 months. The Major Adverse Cardiac Event rate was 20.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9% to 50.0%) in 20 million and 13.3% (95% CI, 3.5% to 43.6%) in 100 million (P=0.58). Worsening heart failure rehospitalization was 20.0% (95% CI, 6.9% to 50.0%) in 20 million and 7.1% (95% CI, 1.0% to 40.9%) in 100 million (P=0.27). Whereas scar size reduced to a similar degree in both groups: 20 million by -6.4 g (interquartile range, -13.5 to -3.4 g; P=0.001) and 100 million by -6.1 g (interquartile range, -8.1 to -4.6 g; P=0.0002), the ejection fraction improved only with 100 million by 3.7 U (interquartile range, 1.1 to 6.1; P=0.04). New York Heart Association class improved at 12 months in 35.7% (95% CI, 12.7% to 64.9%) in 20 million and 42.9% (95% CI, 17.7% to 71.1%) in 100 million. Importantly, proBNP (pro-brain natriuretic peptide) increased at 12 months in 20 million by 0.32 log pg/mL (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.62; P=0.039), but not in 100 million (-0.07 log pg/mL; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.23; P=0.65; between group P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Although both cell doses reduced scar size, only the 100 million dose increased ejection fraction. This study highlights the crucial role of cell dose in the responses to cell therapy. Determining optimal dose and delivery is essential to advance the field, decipher mechanism(s) of action and enhance planning of pivotal Phase III trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02013674.

Evolving, innovating, and revolutionary changes in cardiovascular imaging: We've only just begun!

In this review, we highlight the need for innovation and creativity to reinvent the field of nuclear cardiology. Revolutionary ideas brought forth today are needed to create greater value in patient care and highlight the need for more contemporary evidence supporting the use of nuclear cardiology practices. We put forth discussions on the need for disruptive innovation in imaging-guided care that places the imager as a central force in care coordination. Value-based nuclear cardiology is defined as care that is both efficient and effective. Novel testing strategies that defer testing in lower risk patients are examples of the kind of innovation needed in today's healthcare environment. A major focus of current research is the evolution of the importance of ischemia and the prognostic significance of non-obstructive atherosclerotic plaque and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Embracing novel paradigms, such as this, can aid in the development of optimal strategies for coronary disease management. We hope that our article will spurn the field toward greater innovation and focus on transformative imaging leading the way for new generations of novel cardiovascular care.

Impact of appropriate use on the prognostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to aid in the optimal use of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), a technique that is a mainstay of risk assessment for ischemic heart disease. The impact of appropriate use on the prognostic value of SPECT-MPI is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective cohort study of 1511 consecutive patients undergoing outpatient, community-based SPECT-MPI was conducted. Subjects were stratified on the basis of the 2009 AUC for SPECT-MPI into an appropriate or uncertain appropriateness group and an inappropriate group. Patients were prospectively followed up for 27±10 months for major adverse cardiac events of death, death or myocardial infarction, and cardiac death or myocardial infarction. In the entire cohort, the 167 subjects (11%) with an abnormal scan experienced significantly higher rates of major adverse cardiac events and coronary revascularization than those with normal MPI. Among the 823 subjects (54.5%) whose MPIs were classified as appropriate (779, 51.6%) or uncertain (44, 2.9%), an abnormal scan predicted a multifold increase in the rates of death (9.2% versus 2.6%; hazard ratio, 3.1; P=0.004), death or myocardial infarction (11.8% versus 3.3%; hazard ratio, 3.3; P=0.001), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (6.7% versus 1.7%; hazard ratio, 3.7; P=0.006), and revascularization (24.7% versus 2.7%; hazard ratio, 11.4; P<0.001). Among the 688 subjects (45.5%) with MPI classified as inappropriate, an abnormal MPI failed to predict major adverse cardiac events, although it was associated with a high revascularization rate. Furthermore, appropriate MPI use provided incremental prognostic value beyond myocardial perfusion and ejection fraction data. CONCLUSIONS: When performed for appropriate indications, SPECT-MPI continues to demonstrate high prognostic value. However, inappropriate use lacks effectiveness for risk stratification, further emphasizing the need for optimal patient selection for cardiac testing.

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.

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.

Transendocardial mesenchymal stem cells and mononuclear bone marrow cells for ischemic cardiomyopathy: the TAC-HFT randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Whether culture-expanded mesenchymal stem cells or whole bone marrow mononuclear cells are safe and effective in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safety of transendocardial stem cell injection with autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMCs) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A phase 1 and 2 randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study involving 65 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction less than 50% (September 1, 2009-July 12, 2013). The study compared injection of MSCs (n=19) with placebo (n = 11) and BMCs (n = 19) with placebo (n = 10), with 1 year of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Injections in 10 LV sites with an infusion catheter. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Treatment-emergent 30-day serious adverse event rate defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, perforation, tamponade, or sustained ventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS: No patient had a treatment-emergent serious adverse events at day 30. The 1-year incidence of serious adverse events was 31.6% (95% CI, 12.6% to 56.6%) for MSCs, 31.6% (95% CI, 12.6%-56.6%) for BMCs, and 38.1% (95% CI, 18.1%-61.6%) for placebo. Over 1 year, the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure score improved with MSCs (-6.3; 95% CI, -15.0 to 2.4; repeated measures of variance, P=.02) and with BMCs (-8.2; 95% CI, -17.4 to 0.97; P=.005) but not with placebo (0.4; 95% CI, -9.45 to 10.25; P=.38). The 6-minute walk distance increased with MSCs only (repeated measures model, P = .03). Infarct size as a percentage of LV mass was reduced by MSCs (-18.9%; 95% CI, -30.4 to -7.4; within-group, P = .004) but not by BMCs (-7.0%; 95% CI, -15.7% to 1.7%; within-group, P = .11) or placebo (-5.2%; 95% CI, -16.8% to 6.5%; within-group, P = .36). Regional myocardial function as peak Eulerian circumferential strain at the site of injection improved with MSCs (-4.9; 95% CI, -13.3 to 3.5; within-group repeated measures, P = .03) but not BMCs (-2.1; 95% CI, -5.5 to 1.3; P = .21) or placebo (-0.03; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.9; P = .14). Left ventricular chamber volume and ejection fraction did not change. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Transendocardial stem cell injection with MSCs or BMCs appeared to be safe for patients with chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy and LV dysfunction. Although the sample size and multiple comparisons preclude a definitive statement about safety and clinical effect, these results provide the basis for larger studies to provide definitive evidence about safety and to assess efficacy of this new therapeutic approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00768066.

The prognostic value of cardiac SPECT performed at the primary care physician's office.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of single-photon emission computed-tomography (SPECT)-myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is well documented. However, the utility of SPECT-MPI when performed at a low-volume primary care physician's (PCP's) office is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients referred by their PCP to undergo a stress-MPI at the PCP's office using a mobile laboratory. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and coronary revascularization were prospectively tabulated using mail and telephone interviews, chart review, and social security death index. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred ninety subjects [mean age 58 ± 13 years; 44% women] were followed for 27 ± 9 months, with a 99% complete follow-up rate. Subjects with abnormal MPI [174 (12.5%)] had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality [5.2% vs 1.0%, P < .001], death, or MI [5.7% vs 1.5%, P = .001], and the composite of death, MI, or late revascularization (>60 days post-MPI) [12.6 vs 2.7%, P < .001]. Overall MACE risk was associated with the total perfusion abnormality burden, while the revascularization rate was related to the reversible perfusion abnormality burden. CONCLUSION: Contemporary SPECT-MPI performed in the setting of a PCP's office carries a robust prognostic value, similar to that reported in tertiary or large-volume practice settings.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes of Remote Hemodynamic Assessment Versus Standard Care in Patients With Heart Failure.

In patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), remote hemodynamic monitoring can reduce heart failure exacerbation and mortality. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of remote hemodynamic monitoring with that of standard care in the management of patients with CHF. The remote monitoring group included 7,733 patients, and the control group included 7,567 patients. Chi-square test and I-square statistics were used to assess heterogeneity. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using fixed-effects and random-effects methods to determine the risk of all-cause hospitalization and CHF-related hospitalization (primary outcomes) and all-cause mortality and device outcomes (secondary outcomes). Pooled findings indicated a 7% lower risk of all-cause hospitalization in the remote monitoring group than that in the control group (RR 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 0.98, p = 0.004). The results also revealed a 32% lower risk of CHF-related hospitalization in the remote monitoring group than that in the control group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.71, p <0.001). No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups in terms of all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07, p = 0.53) and device outcomes (RR 1.23 95% CI 0.92 to 1.65, p = 0.16). These results provided evidence regarding the comparable effectiveness of remote CHF monitoring and routine care. The current evidence is insufficient to introduce remote hemodynamic CHF monitoring; however, our results suggest that the integration of telemonitoring systems with routine medical management may improve heart failure care.

Cardiovascular Testing in the United States during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Volume Recovery and Worldwide Comparison.

Purpose: To characterize the recovery of diagnostic cardiovascular procedure volumes in U.S. and non-U.S. facilities in the year following the initial COVID-19 outbreak. Materials and Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) coordinated a worldwide study called the IAEA Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19 2 (INCAPS COVID 2), collecting data from 669 facilities in 107 countries, including 93 facilities in 34 U.S. states, to determine the impact of the pandemic on diagnostic cardiovascular procedure volumes. Participants reported volumes for each diagnostic imaging modality used at their facility for March 2019 (baseline), April 2020, and April 2021. This secondary analysis of INCAPS COVID 2 evaluated differences in changes in procedure volume between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and among U.S. regions. Factors associated with return to prepandemic volumes in the United States were also analyzed in a multivariable regression analysis. Results: Reduction in procedure volumes in April 2020 compared with baseline was similar for U.S. and non-U.S. facilities (-66% vs -71%, P = .27). U.S. facilities reported greater return to baseline in April 2021 than did all non-U.S. facilities (4% vs -6%, P = .008), but there was no evidence of a difference when comparing U.S. facilities with non-U.S. high-income country (NUHIC) facilities (4% vs 0%, P = .18). U.S. regional differences in return to baseline were observed between the Midwest (11%), Northeast (9%), South (1%), and West (-7%, P = .03), but no studied factors were significant predictors of 2021 change from prepandemic baseline. Conclusion: The reductions in cardiac testing during the early pandemic have recovered within a year to prepandemic baselines in the United States and NUHICs, while procedure volumes remain depressed in lower-income countries.Keywords: SPECT, Cardiac, Epidemiology, Angiography, CT Angiography, CT, Echocardiography, SPECT/CT, MR Imaging, Radionuclide Studies, COVID-19, Cardiovascular Imaging, Diagnostic Cardiovascular Procedure, Cardiovascular Disease, Cardiac Testing Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023.

Comparative effectiveness of exercise electrocardiography with or without myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in women with suspected coronary artery disease: results from the What Is the Optimal Method for Ischemia Evaluation in Women (WOMEN) trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of randomized trials regarding diagnostic testing in women with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). It remains unclear whether the addition of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) to the standard ECG exercise treadmill test (ETT) provides incremental information to improve clinical decision making in women with suspected CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized symptomatic women with suspected CAD, an interpretable ECG, and ≥5 metabolic equivalents on the Duke Activity Status Index to 1 of 2 diagnostic strategies: ETT or exercise MPI. The primary end point was 2-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events, defined as CAD death or hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome or heart failure. A total of 824 women were randomized to ETT or exercise MPI. For women randomized to ETT, ECG results were normal in 64%, indeterminate in 16%, and abnormal in 20%. By comparison, the exercise MPI results were normal in 91%, mildly abnormal in 3%, and moderate to severely abnormal in 6%. At 2 years, there was no difference in major adverse cardiac events (98.0% for ETT and 97.7% for MPI; P=0.59). Compared with ETT, index testing costs were higher for exercise MPI (P<0.001), whereas downstream procedural costs were slightly lower (P=0.0008). Overall, the cumulative diagnostic cost savings was 48% for ETT compared with exercise MPI (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In low-risk, exercising women, a diagnostic strategy that uses ETT versus exercise MPI yields similar 2-year posttest outcomes while providing significant diagnostic cost savings. The ETT with selective follow-up testing should be considered as the initial diagnostic strategy in symptomatic women with suspected CAD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00282711.

ACCF/AHA methodology for the development of quality measures for cardiovascular technology: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.

Consistent with the growing national focus on healthcare quality, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have taken a leadership role over the past decade in developing measures of the quality of cardiovascular care by convening a joint ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures. The Task Force is charged with identifying the clinical topics appropriate for the development of performance measures and with assembling writing committees composed of clinical and methodological experts in collaboration with appropriate subspecialty societies. The Task Force has also created methodology documents that offer guidance in the development of process, outcome, composite, and efficiency measures. Cardiovascular performance measures using existing ACCF/AHA methodology are based on Class I or Class III guidelines recommendations, usually with Level A evidence. These performance measures, based on evidence-based ACCF/AHA guidelines, remain the most rigorous quality measures for both internal quality improvement and public reporting. However, many of the tools for diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease involve advanced technologies, such as cardiac imaging, for which there are often no underlying guideline documents. Because these technologies affect the quality of cardiovascular care and also have the potential to contribute to cardiovascular health expenditures, there is a need for more critical assessment of the use of technology, including the development of quality and performance measures in areas in which guideline recommendations are absent. The evaluation of quality in the use of cardiovascular technologies requires consideration of multiple parameters that differ from other healthcare processes. The present document describes methodology for development of 2 new classes of quality measures in these situations, appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures. Appropriate use measures are based on specific indications, processes, or parameters of care for which high level of evidence data and Class I or Class III guideline recommendations may be lacking but are addressed in ACCF appropriate use criteria documents. Structure/safety measures represent measures developed to address structural aspects of the use of healthcare technology (e.g., laboratory accreditation, personnel training, and credentialing) or quality issues related to patient safety when there are neither guidelines recommendations nor appropriate use criteria. Although the strength of evidence for appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures may not be as strong as that for formal performance measures, they are quality measures that are otherwise rigorously developed, reviewed, tested, and approved in the same manner as ACCF/AHA performance measures. The ultimate goal of the present document is to provide direction in defining and measuring the appropriate use-avoiding not only underuse but also overuse and misuse-and proper application of cardiovascular technology and to describe how such appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures might be developed for the purposes of quality improvement and public reporting. It is anticipated that this effort will help focus the national dialogue on the use of cardiovascular technology and away from the current concerns about volume and cost alone to a more holistic emphasis on value.

ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions American Association for Thoracic Surgery American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Heart Failure Society of America Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Utilization of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging in two health care systems: assessment with the 2009 ACCF/ASNC/AHA appropriateness use criteria.

BACKGROUND: Although differences in the rate of utilization of invasive cardiac procedures between Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals and other health care systems are present, noninvasive cardiac imaging use pattern has not been well studied. We evaluated the ability of the updated appropriateness use criteria (AUC) to determine utilization patterns of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and compare use between an academic practice and a VA. METHODS: One-hundred fifty stress/rest MPI studies in an academic practice and 150 at a VA hospital were retrospectively reviewed using the hierarchical approach published in the 2009 AUC. RESULTS: Less than 1% of studies were unclassified. A higher percentage of MPI were requested for inappropriate reason at the VA, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .248). In the VA, non-physicians requested significantly more inappropriate studies than physicians (26.8% vs 20.1%; P < .048). Within the academic practice non-cardiologists referred more patients for inappropriate indications than cardiologists (23.9% vs 10.1%; P = .001). Five most common inappropriate indications accounted for the vast majority of inappropriately requested MPI (77%). CONCLUSIONS: The revised 2009 AUC allow for near complete categorization of appropriateness in testing. Differences between institutions and provider types were noted and areas for improved utilization were identified.

Nomograms for estimating coronary artery disease prognosis with gated stress myocardial perfusion SPECT.

BACKGROUND: Nomograms can be useful tools for estimating coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. We sought to devise risk-based nomograms for stress myocardial perfusion SPECT to include measures of % ischemic myocardium and left ventricular function. METHODS: A total of 4,575 patients were consecutively and prospectively enrolled in the Myoview Prognosis Registry. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model were employed to estimate CAD death or MI. Nomograms were devised from the results of the Cox models. RESULTS: CAD death or MI rates worsened in a gradient manner by the % ischemic myocardium. Higher risk patients were those with a rest and/or post-stress LVEF ≤ 45%. A nomogram was developed to estimate 2-year CAD death or MI-free survival for exercising and pharmacologic stress patients by their post-stress LVEF and % ischemic myocardium MPS results. Patients undergoing pharmacologic stress with a rest and/or post-stress LVEF ≤ 45% with high risk ischemic findings had the lowest CAD death or MI event-free survival. For exercising patients with a preserved resting LVEF > 45%, 2-year CAD death or MI event-free survival ranged from 99.4% to 89% for 0% to ≥20% ischemic myocardium. Those at highest risk included patients undergoing pharmacologic stress with depressed LVEF. For pharmacologic stress patients with a resting LVEF ≤45%, 2-year CAD death or MI event-free survival ranged from 89% to 48% for 0% to ≥20% ischemic myocardium. For pharmacologic stress patients with a post-stress LVEF ≤ 45%, 2-year CAD death or MI event-free survival ranged from 88% to 46% for 0% to ≥20% ischemic myocardium. A validation cohort revealed moderate-strong correlation between observed and predicted survival (r = 0.71). Average discordance between observed and predicted survival was ≤2% but was greater for higher risk patients with lower predicted survival estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Risk-based nomograms estimating important CAD outcomes may serve as a clinically useful tool to target therapeutic intervention for high risk patient subsets.

A Quality Improvement Initiative for Increasing Cardiac Rehabilitation Referrals Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) Methodology.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular rehabilitation has been shown to improve morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiac illnesses; however, the referral rate for eligible patients at Tulane Medical Center has remained below best practice standards. METHODS: This is a single-center, quality-improvement study conducted from January 2020 through December 2020, with historical controls from 2019. Using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle methodology, interventions were designed to improve referral rates for cardiac rehabilitation-eligible patients. Interventions included a presentation about the importance of cardiac rehabilitation and the current state of referrals, weekly reminders to residents and fellows on inpatient services with eligible patients, and an admission order set that included a default order for cardiac rehabilitation. RESULTS: The primary outcome was referral rate, which was measured by the total number of referrals compared with the total number of patients eligible for cardiac rehabilitation. In this quality-improvement study of 770 patients, there was a significant increase in the referral rate for cardiac rehabilitation-eligible patients. When comparing the referral rate in 2020-following institution of quality-improvement interventions-with that from 2019, there was an increase from 27% to 70%. CONCLUSIONS: This quality-improvement study found that various interventions significantly increased the cardiac rehabilitation referral rate through a straightforward and simple strategy. Further efforts are underway to promote additional referral in order to meet or exceed the >90% best practice standard.

Appropriateness use criteria for transthoracic echocardiography: relationship with radiology benefit managers preauthorization determination and comparison of the new (2010) criteria to the original (2007) criteria.

BACKGROUND: In response to growth in cardiac imaging, medical societies have published appropriateness use criteria (AUC) and payers have introduced preauthorization mandates, largely through radiology benefits managers (RBM). The correlation of algorithms used to determine preauthorization with the AUC is unknown. In addition, studies applying the 2007 AUC for transthoracic echocardiography revealed that many echocardiograms could not be classified. We sought to examine the impact of the revised 2010 AUC on appropriateness ratings of transthoracic echocardiograms previously classified by the 2007 AUC and the relationship of preauthorization determination to AUC rating. METHODS: We reclassified indications for transthoracic echocardiography as appropriate, inappropriate, uncertain, or unclassifiable using the 2010 AUC in the same 625 patients previously reported using 2007 AUC. We also evaluated the relationship between preauthorization status by 2 RBM precertification algorithms and appropriateness rating by 2007 AUC. RESULTS: The appropriateness classification of 148 (24%) transthoracic echocardiograms was changed by the updated AUC (P < .001). The number of unclassifiable echocardiograms was markedly reduced from 99 (16%) to 8 (1%), and more echocardiograms were classified as inappropriate (95 [15%] vs 45 [7%]) or uncertain (43 [7%] vs 0 [0%]). Limited correlation between the 2007 AUC rating and RBM preauthorization determinations was noted, with only moderate agreement with RBM no. 1 (90%, κ = 0.480, P < .001) and poor agreement with RBM no. 2 (72%, κ = 0.177, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The updated AUC (2010) provide enhanced clinical value compared with 2007 AUC. There is limited agreement between RBM preauthorization determination and 2007 AUC rating.