ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2019 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging in the Assessment of Cardiac Structure and Function in Nonvalvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This document is the second of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 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 first document1 addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas this document addresses this topic with regard to structural (nonvalvular) heart disease. While dealing with different subjects, the 2 documents do share a common structure and feature some clinical overlap. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of structural and valvular heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities. Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the 102 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations in which diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging in Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This document is 1 of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. This document addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas the second, companion document addresses this topic with regard to structural heart disease. Although there is clinical overlap, the documents addressing valvular and structural heart disease are published separately, albeit with a common structure. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of valvular and structural heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities. Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the 92 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations where diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/EACTS/HVS/SCA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for the Treatment of Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, 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 collaborated with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons to develop and evaluate Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This is the first AUC to address the topic of AS and its treatment options, including surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A number of common patient scenarios experienced in daily practice were developed along with assumptions and definitions for those scenarios, which were all created using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of AS. The 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines(1) and its 2017 focused update paper (2) were used as the primary guiding references in developing these indications. The writing group identified 95 clinical scenarios based on patient symptoms and clinical presentation, and up to 6 potential treatment options for those patients. A separate, independent rating panel was asked to score each indication from 1 to 9, with 1-3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4-6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7-9 as "Appropriate." After considering factors such as symptom status, left ventricular (LV) function, surgical risk, and the presence of concomitant coronary or other valve disease, the rating panel determined that either SAVR or TAVR is Appropriate in most patients with symptomatic AS at intermediate or high surgical risk; however, situations commonly arise in clinical practice in which the indications for SAVR or TAVR are less clear, including situations in which 1 form of valve replacement would appear reasonable when the other is less so, as do other circumstances in which neither intervention is the suitable treatment option. The purpose of this AUC is to provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with severe AS by identifying the reasonable treatment and intervention options available based on the myriad clinical scenarios with which patients present. This AUC document also serves as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of rarely appropriate interventions in clinical practice.

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.

Randomized Comparison of Allogeneic Versus Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy: POSEIDON-DCM Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) have been tested in ischemic cardiomyopathy, few studies exist in chronic nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM). OBJECTIVES: The authors conducted a randomized comparison of safety and efficacy of autologous (auto) versus allogeneic (allo) bone marrow-derived hMSCs in NIDCM. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to either allo- or auto-hMSCs in a 1:1 ratio. Patients were recruited between December 2011 and July 2015 at the University of Miami Hospital. Patients received hMSCs (100 million) by transendocardial stem cell injection in 10 left ventricular sites. Treated patients were evaluated at baseline, 30 days, and 3-, 6-, and 12-months for safety (serious adverse events [SAE]), and efficacy endpoints: ejection fraction, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, 6-min walk test, major adverse cardiac events, and immune biomarkers. RESULTS: There were no 30-day treatment-emergent SAEs. Twelve-month SAE incidence was 28.2% with allo-hMSCs versus 63.5% with auto-hMSCs (p = 0.1004 for the comparison). One allo-hMSC patient developed an elevated (>80) donor-specific calculated panel reactive antibody level. The ejection fraction increased in allo-hMSC patients by 8.0 percentage points (p = 0.004) compared with 5.4 with auto-hMSCs (p = 0.116; allo vs. auto p = 0.4887). The 6-min walk test increased with allo-hMSCs by 37.0 m (p = 0.04), but not auto-hMSCs at 7.3 m (p = 0.71; auto vs. allo p = 0.0168). MLHFQ score decreased in allo-hMSC (p = 0.0022) and auto-hMSC patients (p = 0.463; auto vs. allo p = 0.172). The major adverse cardiac event rate was lower, too, in the allo group (p = 0.0186 vs. auto). Tumor necrosis factor-α decreased (p = 0.0001 for each), to a greater extent with allo-hMSCs versus auto-hMSCs at 6 months (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated safety and clinically meaningful efficacy of allo-hMSC versus auto-hMSC in NIDCM patients. Pivotal trials of allo-hMSCs are warranted based on these results. (Percutaneous Stem Cell Injection Delivery Effects on Neomyogenesis in Dilated Cardiomyopathy [PoseidonDCM]; NCT01392625).

Association between anti-human heat shock protein-60 and interleukin-2 with coronary artery calcium score.

INTRODUCTION: Based upon evidence suggesting that concentrations of anti-heat shock protein-60 (anti-HSP60) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) are associated with atherogenesis, we tested the hypothesis that anti-HSP60 and IL-2 are associated with coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis. METHODS: We evaluated 998 asymptomatic adults, age 45-84 years, without known coronary disease from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), who had anti-HSP60 measured at baseline. Tertiles of serum anti-HSP60 were evaluated. The associations of IL-2 and anti-HSP60 with CAC were assessed using multivariate analyses, with adjustments for coronary risk factors and Framingham risk score. RESULTS: Patients' demographics, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, or dyslipidaemia did not show differences in levels of anti-HSP60. The median (IQR) Framingham risk score was 11 (5-22), 8 (5-16), and 9 (5-18) for the first, second, and third tertiles, respectively (p=0.043). IL-2 and tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α) were associated with increased CAC (IL-2: OR 3.70, p<0.001; TNF-α: OR 4.63, p<0.001). In multivariate regression, the highest tertiles of anti-HSP60 and IL-2 were associated with increased risk of CAC (HSP60 T3: OR 1.49, p=0.022; IL-2: OR 2.49, p<0.001). After adjustment, significant progression of CAC was observed in patients with higher baseline levels of anti-HSP60 (estimate 31.73, p=0.016) and IL-2 (estimate 34.39, p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Increased concentrations of inflammatory markers (IL-2 and anti-HSP60) are associated with an increased CAC at baseline and follow-up in healthy asymptomatic adults. Future studies should be carried out to assess its association with early development of atherosclerosis.

Patient-centered imaging: shared decision making for cardiac imaging procedures with exposure to ionizing radiation.

The current paper details the recommendations arising from an NIH-NHLBI/NCI-sponsored symposium held in November 2012, aiming to identify key components of a radiation accountability framework fostering patient-centered imaging and shared decision-making in cardiac imaging. Symposium participants, working in 3 tracks, identified key components of a framework to target critical radiation safety issues for the patient, the laboratory, and the larger population of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. The use of ionizing radiation during an imaging procedure should be disclosed to all patients by the ordering provider at the time of ordering, and reinforced by the performing provider team. An imaging protocol with effective dose ≤3 mSv is considered very low risk, not warranting extensive discussion or written informed consent. However, a protocol effective dose >20 mSv was proposed as a level requiring particular attention in terms of shared decision-making and either formal discussion or written informed consent. Laboratory reporting of radiation dosimetry is a critical component of creating a quality laboratory fostering a patient-centered environment with transparent procedural methodology. Efforts should be directed to avoiding testing involving radiation, in patients with inappropriate indications. Standardized reporting and diagnostic reference levels for computed tomography and nuclear cardiology are important for the goal of public reporting of laboratory radiation dose levels in conjunction with diagnostic performance. The development of cardiac imaging technologies revolutionized cardiology practice by allowing routine, noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion and anatomy. It is now incumbent upon the imaging community to create an accountability framework to safely drive appropriate imaging utilization.

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.

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 to 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.

Appropriate use criteria for stress echocardiography: impact of updated criteria on appropriateness ratings, correlation with pre-authorization guidelines, and effect of temporal trends and an educational initiative on utilization.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated utilization of stress echocardiography (SE) at our institution, the impact of the updated 2011 appropriate use criteria (AUC) on appropriateness ratings, correlation of AUC to radiology benefits managers' (RBM) pre-certification guidelines and the effect of temporal trends and an AUC-based educational project on appropriateness. BACKGROUND: The AUC for SE have been developed to improve efficiency of utilization and promote optimal patient care. METHODS: We classified the appropriateness of 209 SEs from 2008 using the original and updated AUC. We also performed pre-authorization determinations on these SEs using the guidelines of 2 RBMs. We then classified and compared the appropriateness of 209 SEs from 2011 using the updated criteria to that of the 2008 cohort. Finally, we rated and compared 111 SEs requested by cardiologists after an educational project to 111 SEs referred before the intervention. RESULTS: Overall, nearly one-third of SEs were requested for inappropriate indications. Using 2011 AUC, the original ratings of 52 (25%) studies by AUC 2008 were changed and the number of unclassified SE decreased from 20 (9.6%) to 2 (1%). Correlation between RBM pre-authorization determination and AUC ratings was substantial for the first RBM (κ = 0.625) and fair for the second (κ = 0.358). However, 12.9% and 41.9% of studies classified as appropriate or uncertain by the AUC would not have received pre-authorization according to the guidelines of the first and second RBMs, respectively. Referrals of inappropriate SE did not decrease over time or with an educational intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The revisions in the updated AUC improve their clinical application by encompassing nearly all indications for SE. The limited correlation between AUC ratings and RBM determinations suggests a need for greater consistency. The large number of SE requested for inappropriate indications at our institution did not decrease with time or education.

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.

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an update of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization frequently considered. In the initial document, 180 clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document, and the definition of appropriateness was unchanged. The technical panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate and likely to improve patients' health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization is considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization will improve health outcomes or survival is uncertain. In general, as seen with the prior AUC, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia is appropriate. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy are viewed less favorably. The technical panel felt that based on recent studies, coronary artery bypass grafting remains an appropriate method of revascularization for patients with high burden of coronary artery disease (CAD). Additionally, percutaneous coronary intervention may have a role in revascularization of patients with high burden of CAD. The primary objective of the appropriate use criteria is to improve physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and to guide future research.

Cocaine-using patients with a normal or nondiagnostic electrocardiogram: single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Few trials have examined the outcomes of patients who use cocaine with chest pain and who have a normal or nondiagnostic electrocardiogram (ECG) and the use of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). HYPOTHESIS: We sought to compare the characteristics and overall outcomes in cocaine users vs non-cocaine users presenting to the emergency department with a normal/nondiagnostic ECG and to assess the value of rest MPI in both of these populations. METHODS: Patients with symptoms compatible with myocardial ischemia, suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and a normal/nondiagnostic ECG were enrolled in the Emergency Room Assessment of Sestamibi for Evaluation of Chest Pain (ERASE Chest Pain) trial, a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the impact of rest MPI on triage decisions. Cocaine users (n = 294) were compared to non-cocaine users (n = 2180). Cocaine users were younger than non-cocaine users, and 72% were male. RESULTS: Among the cocaine users, 2.4% had a myocardial infarction, 1.4% required percutaneous coronary intervention, and none of the patients underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Among cocaine users with a final diagnosis of not ACS, randomization of patients to rest SPECT MPI resulted in an appropriate reduction in hospital admissions in both the cocaine users (P = 0.011) and the non-cocaine users (P < 0.001), suggesting improved triage when MPI was used. CONCLUSIONS: Cocaine users with a normal/nondiagnostic ECG are at low risk of cardiac events. Even though cocaine users are at low risk of cardiac events, SPECT MPI remains effective in the risk stratification and improves triage management decisions resulting in lower admission rates and more discharges to home.

Appropriate use of radionuclide imaging.

The growth of radionuclide imaging has raised well-founded concerns about potential overutilization. In response to the need for guidance, appropriate use criteria have been developed, which categorize specific clinical scenarios such as whether radionuclide imaging would be reasonable (appropriate) to perform, or whether the test would be performed for uncertain or inappropriate indications. Using these criteria, practice patterns may be evaluated and information provided to practitioners regarding test ordering. This information, along with clinical decision support, may provide a foundation to improve the utilization of cardiac imaging, preserving patient access to these procedures, but with an emphasis on cost-effectiveness and safety.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® chronic chest pain--high probability of coronary artery disease.

Imaging is valuable in determining the presence, extent, and severity of myocardial ischemia and the severity of obstructive coronary lesions in patients with chronic chest pain in the setting of high probability of coronary artery disease. Imaging is critical for defining patients best suited for medical therapy or intervention, and findings can be used to predict long-term prognosis and the likely benefit from various therapeutic options. Chest radiography, radionuclide single photon-emission CT, radionuclide ventriculography, and conventional coronary angiography are the imaging modalities historically used in evaluating suspected chronic myocardial ischemia. Stress echocardiography, PET, cardiac MRI, and multidetector cardiac CT have all been more recently shown to be valuable in the evaluation of ischemic heart disease. Other imaging techniques may be helpful in those patients who do not present with signs classic for angina pectoris or in those patients who do not respond as expected to standard management. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.