ACC/AHA/ASE/HRS/ISACHD/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/SOPE 2020 Appropriate Use Criteria for Multimodality Imaging During the Follow-Up Care of Patients With Congenital Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee and Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Pediatric Echocardiography.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) collaborated with the American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, Heart Rhythm Society, International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Pediatric Echocardiography to develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for multimodality imaging during the follow-up care of patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). This is the first AUC to address cardiac imaging in adult and pediatric patients with established CHD. A number of common patient scenarios (also termed "indications") and associated assumptions and definitions were developed using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of CHD.1 The indications relate primarily to evaluation before and after cardiac surgery or catheter-based intervention, and they address routine surveillance as well as evaluation of new-onset signs or symptoms. The writing group developed 324 clinical indications, which they separated into 19 tables according to the type of cardiac lesion. Noninvasive cardiac imaging modalities that could potentially be used for these indications were incorporated into the tables, resulting in a total of 1,035 unique scenarios. These scenarios were presented to a separate, independent panel for rating, with each being scored on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 to 3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4 to 6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7 to 9 as "Appropriate." Forty-four percent of the scenarios were rated as Appropriate, 39% as May Be Appropriate, and 17% as Rarely Appropriate. This AUC document will provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with established CHD by identifying the reasonable imaging modality options available for evaluation and surveillance of such patients. It will also serve as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of Rarely Appropriate tests in clinical practice.

Clinical Features and Outcomes of Patients With Malignancy and Takotsubo Syndrome: Observations From the International Takotsubo Registry.

Background Clinical characteristics and outcomes of takotsubo syndrome (TTS) patients with malignancy have not been fully elucidated. This study sought to explore differences in clinical characteristics and to investigate short- and long-term outcomes in TTS patients with or without malignancy. Methods and Results TTS patients were enrolled from the International Takotsubo Registry. The TTS cohort was divided into patients with and without malignancy to investigate differences in clinical characteristics and to assess short- and long-term mortality. A subanalysis was performed comparing long-term mortality between a subset of TTS patients with or without malignancy and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with or without malignancy. Malignancy was observed in 16.6% of 1604 TTS patients. Patients with malignancy were older and more likely to have physical triggers, but less likely to have emotional triggers compared with those without malignancy. Long-term mortality was higher in patients with malignancy (P<0.001), while short-term outcome was comparable (P=0.17). In a subanalysis, long-term mortality was comparable between TTS patients with malignancies and ACS patients with malignancies (P=0.13). Malignancy emerged as an independent predictor of long-term mortality. Conclusions A substantial number of TTS patients show an association with malignancy. History of malignancy might increase the risk for TTS, and therefore, appropriate screening for malignancy should be considered in these patients. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrial.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01947621.

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.

Perceptions of patients and providers on myocardial perfusion imaging for asymptomatic patients, choosing wisely, and professional liability.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts by professional societies to reduce low value care, many reports indicate that unnecessary tests, such as nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), are commonly used in contemporary practice. The degree to which lack of awareness and professional liability concerns drive these behaviors warrants further study. We sought to investigate patient and provider perceptions about MPI in asymptomatic patients, the Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, and professional liability concerns. METHODS: We administered an anonymous, paper-based survey with both discrete and open-response queries to subjects in multiple outpatient settings at our facilities. The survey was completed by 456 respondents including 342 patients and 114 physicians and advanced practice providers between May and August 2014. Our outcome was to compare patient and provider perceptions about MPI in asymptomatic patients and related factors. RESULTS: Patients were more likely than providers to report that MPI was justified for asymptomatic patients (e.g. asymptomatic with family history of heart disease 75% versus 9.2%, p < 0.0001). In free responses to the question "What would be an inappropriate reason for MPI?" many responses echoed the goals of CW (for example, "If you don't have symptoms", "If the test is too risky", "For screening or in asymptomatic patients"). A minority of providers were aware of CW while even fewer patients were aware (37.2% versus 2.7%, p < 0.0001). Over one third of providers (38.9%) admitted to ordering MPI out of concern for professional liability including 48.3% of VA affiliated providers. CONCLUSIONS: While some patients and providers are aware of the low value of MPI in patients without symptoms, others are enthusiastic to use it for a variety of scenarios. Concerns about professional liability likely contribute, even in the VA setting. Awareness of the Choosing Wisely campaign is low in both groups.

Outcomes after inappropriate nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging: A meta-analysis.

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.

Left ventricular mass in a patient with peripheral eosinophilia.

: A 63-year-old man presented with dyspnea and night sweats. Blood work revealed an elevated white count of 23.7 × 10 cells/l with 33% eosinophils and bone marrow biopsy made a diagnosis of myeloproliferative eosinophilia. Transthoracic echocardiography found a large left ventricular mass filling the distal third of the cavity. Transesophageal echocardiograpm confirmed the findings. Herein, we discuss this unique case of hypereosinophilic syndromes with pathognomonic imaging of its cardiovascular sequelae.

Cardiovascular Effects of Exposure to Cigarette Smoke and Electronic Cigarettes: Clinical Perspectives From the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Section Leadership Council and Early Career Councils of the American College of Cardiology.

Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as a result of inhaled tobacco products continues to be a global healthcare crisis, particularly in low- and middle-income nations lacking the infrastructure to develop and implement effective public health policies limiting tobacco use. Following initiation of public awareness campaigns 50 years ago in the United States, considerable success has been achieved in reducing the prevalence of cigarette smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke. However, there has been a slowing of cessation rates in the United States during recent years, possibly caused by high residual addiction or fatigue from cessation messaging. Furthermore, tobacco products have continued to evolve faster than the scientific understanding of their biological effects. This review considers selected updates on the genetics and epigenetics of smoking behavior and associated cardiovascular risk, mechanisms of atherogenesis and thrombosis, clinical effects of smoking and benefits of cessation, and potential impact of electronic cigarettes on cardiovascular health.

Prevalence and Overlap of Noncardiac Conditions in the Evaluation of Low-risk Acute Chest Pain Patients.

BACKGROUND: When patients present to the emergency department with a complaint concerning for heart disease, this often becomes the primary focus of their evaluation. While patients with noncardiac causes of chest pain outnumber those with cardiac causes, noncardiac etiologies are frequently overlooked. We investigated symptoms and noncardiac conditions in a cohort of patients with chest pain at low risk of cardiac disease. METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective registry of patients who were evaluated in our chest pain evaluation center. Registry participants completed standardized and validated instruments for depression (by Patient Health Questionnaire PHQ-9), anxiety (by Generalized Anxiety Disorder GAD-7), and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disorder (GERD; by GERD Symptom Frequency Questionnaire). Chest pain characteristics were recorded; severity was reported on a 10-point scale. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients were included in the investigation. Using the instruments noted above, the prevalence of depression was 34%, anxiety was 30%, and GERD was 44%, each of at least moderate severity. 32.5% of patients had 2 or more conditions. The median for the severity of angina was 7/10 and the number of episodes over the preceding week was 2, respectively. Severity of angina was associated with PHQ-9 (r = 0.238; P < 0.001) and GAD-7 (r = 0.283; P < 0.001) scores. The number of angina episodes over the prior week correlated with GERD Symptom Frequency Questionnaire (r = 0.256; P < 0.001) and PHQ-9 (r = 0.175; P = 0.019) scores. No correlation was observed between any of the scores and body mass index, smoking tobacco, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of low-risk acute chest pain patients, depression, anxiety, and GERD were common, substantial overlap was observed. The severity of these noncardiac causes of chest pain causes correlated with the self-reported severity and frequency of angina, but weakly. These conditions should be part of a comprehensive plan of care for chest pain management.

Diagnostic yield of routine noninvasive cardiovascular testing in low-risk acute chest pain patients.

Contemporary professional society recommendations for patients presenting to the emergency department with acute chest pain and low clinical risk encourage noninvasive testing for coronary artery disease (CAD) before, or shortly after, discharge from the emergency department. Recent reports indicate that a strategy of universal testing has a low diagnostic yield and may not be necessary. We examined data from a prospective cohort of patients who underwent evaluation of acute chest pain in our chest pain evaluation center (CPEC). Patients presenting with normal initial electrocardiogram and cardiac injury markers were eligible for observation and noninvasive testing for CAD in our CPEC. All patients were asked to participate in the prospective registry. The 213 subjects who consented were young, obese, and predominantly women (mean age 43.8 ± 12.5, mean body mass index of 30.8 ± 7, 64.8% women). Prevalence of diabetes was 10.3% (hypertension 37.1%, hyperlipidemia 17.8%, and current tobacco use 23.5%) Exercise treadmill testing was the primary method of evaluation (n = 104, 49%) followed by computed tomography coronary angiography (n = 58, 27%) and myocardial perfusion imaging (n = 20, 9%). Of 203 patients who underwent testing, 11 had abnormal test results, 4 of whom had obstructive CAD based on invasive coronary angiography. The positive predictive value for obstructive CAD after an abnormal test was 45.5%, and the overall diagnostic yield for obstructive CAD was 2.5%. In conclusion, in patients with acute chest pain evaluated in a CPEC, the yield of routine use of noninvasive testing for CAD was minimal and the positive predictive value of an abnormal test was low.

Metrics of quality care in veterans: correlation between primary-care performance measures and inappropriate myocardial perfusion imaging.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% to 20% of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) tests are inappropriate based on professional-society recommendations. The correlation between inappropriate MPI and quality care metrics is not known. HYPOTHESIS: Inappropriate MPI will be associated with low achievement of quality care metrics. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional investigation at a single Veterans Affairs medical center. Myocardial perfusion imaging tests ordered by primary-care clinicians between December 2010 and July 2011 were assessed for appropriateness (by 2009 criteria). Using documentation of the clinical encounter where MPI was ordered, we determined how often quality care metrics were achieved. RESULTS: Among 516 MPI patients, 52 (10.1%) were inappropriate and 464 (89.9%) were not inappropriate (either appropriate or uncertain). Hypertension (82.2%), diabetes mellitus (41.3%), and coronary artery disease (41.1%) were common. Glycated hemoglobin levels were lower in the inappropriate MPI cohort (6.6% vs 7.5%; P = 0.04). No difference was observed in the proportion with goal hemoglobin (62.5% vs 46.3% for appropriate/uncertain; P = 0.258). Systolic blood pressure was not different (132 mm Hg vs 135 mm Hg; P = 0.34). Achievement of several other categorical quality metrics was low in both cohorts and no differences were observed. More than 90% of clinicians documented a plan to achieve most metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate MPI is not associated with performance on metrics of quality care. If an association exists, it may be between inappropriate MPI and overly aggressive care. Most clinicians document a plan of care to address failure of quality metrics, suggesting awareness of the problem.

Prevalence and implications of severe anxiety in a prospective cohort of acute chest pain patients.

Anxiety is a common condition which can manifest with symptoms of chest discomfort. Chest discomfort is one of the most common reasons to seek emergency medical care. We hypothesize that anxiety is highly prevalent, poorly diagnosed, and poorly treated in an acute care environment. We analyzed data from a prospective registry of chest pain patients with low to intermediate likelihood of acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery disease. Scores from the General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire determined the prevalence of anxiety. Differences in presentation, evaluation, and 30-day outcomes were compared for subjects with and without severe anxiety. Of the 151 included subjects, severe anxiety was observed in 15%, moderate 14%, mild 30%, and 41% had no anxiety symptoms. Subjects with severe anxiety had similar baseline characteristics, cardiac risk factors, and symptoms to those without severe anxiety, except for the current use of tobacco (50.0% vs. 18.6%; P = 0.001). Anxiety was self-reported by 54.5% of subjects with severe anxiety and 27.3% were on antianxiety medications. Hospital admission (P = 0.888) and repeated emergency department visits within 30 days (P = 0.554) were not different between the 2 groups. Anxiety is common among patients seeking emergency evaluation of chest pain. Half of patients with severe anxiety were diagnosed and roughly one quarter were medically treated. Cardiac risk factors and symptoms are not different for patients with severe anxiety; these patients warrant a similar evaluation for heart disease as those patients without anxiety.

A training program in cardiovascular cell-based therapy: from the NHLBI Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network.

Stem/progenitor cell-based therapies offer novel treatment for many prevalent diseases. However, most physicians are not trained or introduced to cell therapy. We describe a model of a training program aimed at empowering physician-scientists with the knowledge and skills necessary for advancing the field of cardiovascular cell therapy. To date, five full-time scholars have completed this training program, obtained a full-time academic appointment in Cardiovascular Disease, and continue to actively contribute to the advancement of cell therapy applications. Another has returned to his parent institution to complete his PhD and several part-time scholars have continued in scholarly activities in other academic programs.

Usefulness of Beta blockade in contemporary management of patients with stable coronary heart disease.

Considerable progress has been made over the last few decades in the management of clinically stable coronary heart disease (SCHD), including improvements in interventions (e.g., percutaneous revascularization), pharmacological management, and risk factor control (e.g., smoking, diet, activity level, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension). Although ß blockers have long been used for the treatment of SCHD, their efficacy was established in the era before widespread use of reperfusion interventions, modern medical therapy (e.g., angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers), or preventive treatments (e.g., aspirin, statins). On the basis of these older data, ß blockers are assumed beneficial, and their use has been extrapolated beyond patients with heart failure and previous myocardial infarction, which provided the best evidence for efficacy. However, there are no randomized clinical trials demonstrating that ß blockers decrease clinical events in patients with SCHD in the modern era. Furthermore, these agents are associated with weight gain, problems with glycemic control, fatigue, and bronchospasm, underscoring the fact that their use is not without risk. In conclusion, data are currently lacking to support the widespread use of ß blockers for all SCHD patients, but contemporary data suggest that they be reserved for a well-defined high-risk group of patients with evidence of ongoing ischemia, left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, and perhaps some arrhythmias.

Clinician-dependent variations in inappropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging: training, specialty, and location.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) may vary depending on the training, specialty, or practice location of the clinician. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of consecutive patients who underwent MPI at our Veterans Affairs medical center between December 2010 and July 2011. Characteristics of the MPI ordering clinicians were extracted to investigate any associations with inappropriate use. RESULTS: 582 patients were included, 9.8% were inappropriate. No difference in inappropriate use was observed between cardiology and non-cardiology clinicians (n = 21, 9.5% vs n = 36, 10.0%, P = .83); no difference was noted between nurse practitioners/physician assistants, attending physicians, and housestaff (7.5% vs 11.2% vs 1.8%, P = .06). Comparing inpatient, emergency department and outpatient clinician groups, the difference was null (8.6% vs 6.3% vs 10.1%, P = .75). For most clinician groups, the most common inappropriate indication was an asymptomatic scenario; however, some groups were different: definite acute coronary syndrome for inpatient clinicians and low risk syncope for emergency medicine clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician groups appear to order inappropriate MPI at similar rates, regardless of their training, specialty, or practice location. Differences in the most common type of inappropriate testing suggest that interventions to reduce inappropriate use should be tailored to specific clinician types.