Intravascular imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention: temporal trends and clinical outcomes in the USA.

AIMS: Prior trials have demonstrated that intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results in less frequent target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with standard angiographic guidance. The uptake and associated outcomes of IVI-guided PCI in contemporary clinical practice in the USA remain unclear. Accordingly, temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI relative to PCI with angiographic guidance alone were examined in a broad, unselected population of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiary data from 1 January 2013, through 31 December 2019 to evaluate temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI as compared with PCI with angiography guidance alone in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The primary outcomes were 1 year mortality and MACE, defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat PCI, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Secondary outcomes were MI or repeat PCI at 1 year. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted association between IVI guidance and outcomes. Falsification endpoints (hospitalized pneumonia and hip fracture) were used to assess for potential unmeasured confounding. The study population included 1 189 470 patients undergoing PCI (38.0% female, 89.8% White, 65.1% with MI). Overall, IVI was used in 10.5% of the PCIs, increasing from 9.5% in 2013% to 15.4% in 2019. Operator IVI use was variable, with the median operator use of IVI 3.92% (interquartile range 0.36%-12.82%). IVI use during PCI was associated with lower adjusted rates of 1 year mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], MI (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99), repeat PCI (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.73-0.75), and MACE (aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86). There was no association with the falsification endpoint of hospitalized pneumonia (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99-1.04) or hip fracture (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10). CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing PCI, use of IVI has increased over the previous decade but remains relatively infrequent. IVI-guided PCI was associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality, acute MI, repeat PCI, and MACE.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiovascular Testing in Asia: The IAEA INCAPS-COVID Study.

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly affected management of cardiovascular disease around the world. The effect of the pandemic on volume of cardiovascular diagnostic procedures is not known. Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effects of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular diagnostic procedures and safety practices in Asia. Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey to assess changes in cardiovascular procedure volume and safety practices caused by COVID-19. Testing volumes were reported for March 2020 and April 2020 and were compared to those from March 2019. Data from 180 centers across 33 Asian countries were grouped into 4 subregions for comparison. Results: Procedure volumes decreased by 47% from March 2019 to March 2020, showing recovery from March 2020 to April 2020 in Eastern Asia, particularly in China. The majority of centers cancelled outpatient activities and increased time per study. Practice changes included implementing physical distancing and restricting visitors. Although COVID testing was not commonly performed, it was conducted in one-third of facilities in Eastern Asia. The most severe reductions in procedure volumes were observed in lower-income countries, where volumes decreased 81% from March 2019 to April 2020. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic in Asia caused significant reductions in cardiovascular diagnostic procedures, particularly in low-income countries. Further studies on effects of COVID-19 on cardiovascular outcomes and changes in care delivery are warranted.

Comparison of Reperfusion Strategies for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Multivariate Network Meta-analysis.

Background We systematically reviewed trials comparing different reperfusion strategies for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and used multivariate network meta-analysis to compare outcomes across these strategies. Methods and Results We identified 31 contemporary trials in which patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to ≥2 of the following strategies: fibrinolytic therapy (n=4212), primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=6139), or fibrinolysis followed by routine early PCI (n=5006). We categorized the last approach as "facilitated PCI" when the median time interval between fibrinolysis to PCI was <2 hours (n=2259) and as a "pharmacoinvasive approach" when this interval was ≥2 hours (n=2747). We evaluated outcomes of death, nonfatal reinfarction, stroke, and major bleeding using a multivariate network meta-analysis and a Bayesian analysis. Among the strategies evaluated, primary PCI was associated with the lowest risk of mortality, nonfatal reinfarction, and stroke. For mortality, primary PCI had an odds ratio of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.89) when compared with fibrinolytic therapy. Of the remaining strategies, the pharmacoinvasive approach was the next most favorable with an odds ratio for death of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.59-1.08) compared with fibrinolytic therapy. The Bayesian model indicated that when the 2 strategies examining routine early invasive therapy following fibrinolysis were directly compared, the probability of adverse outcomes was lower for the pharmacoinvasive approach relative to facilitated PCI. Conclusions A pharmacoinvasive approach is safer and more effective than facilitated PCI and fibrinolytic therapy alone. This has significant implications for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction care in settings where timely access to primary PCI, the preferred treatment for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, is not available.

Weighing the potential late benefits versus early hazard associated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions: a Markov decision analytic model.

OBJECTIVE: Use of poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) has been associated with increased risk of device thrombosis during the first 3 years after implantation as compared to metallic everolimus-eluting stents (EES). The long-term performance of BRS relative to EES remains unknown. METHODS: We used a Markov decision analysis model to evaluate the effectiveness of BRS vs. EES over a lifetime horizon. In addition to one-way sensitivity analyses of key variables, we evaluated the impact of optimal implantation technique and limiting procedures to larger vessels (>2.6 mm in diameter) on model results. RESULTS: Assuming no risk of target lesion revascularization for BRS after 3 years, we found a small increment in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) of 0.02 with the use of BRS relative to EES, with benefit being observed after 21.8 years. Optimal implantation technique and limiting to larger vessels resulted in larger gains in QALE (0.08 and 0.06, respectively) with BRS and shorter times to equipoise (6.7 and 8.3 years, respectively). Model results were highly sensitive to variations in the relative risk of stent thrombosis (BRS vs. EES). CONCLUSIONS: Based on currently available data, it would take approximately 21.8 years for the presumed late benefits of current BRS relative to EES to overcome the early hazard associated with their use under favorable assumptions. Optimal implantation technique and limiting procedures to larger vessels improved BRS performance and reduced time to equipoise. Eliminating the higher BRS thrombosis risk is necessary in developing future generations of BRS as an acceptable alternative to EES.

10-Year Resource Utilization and Costs for Cardiovascular Care.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) imparts a heavy economic burden on the U.S. health care system. Evidence regarding the long-term costs after comprehensive CVD screening is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study calculated 10-year health care costs for 6,814 asymptomatic participants enrolled in MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), a registry sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health. METHODS: Cumulative 10-year costs for CVD medications, office visits, diagnostic procedures, coronary revascularization, and hospitalizations were calculated from detailed follow-up data. Costs were derived by using Medicare nationwide and zip code-specific costs, inflation corrected, discounted at 3% per year, and presented in 2014 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Risk factor prevalence increased dramatically and, by 10 years, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia was reported in 19%, 57%, and 53%, respectively. Self-reported symptoms (i.e., chest pain or shortness of breath) were common (approximately 40% of enrollees). At 10 years, approximately one-third of enrollees reported having an echocardiogram or exercise test, whereas 7% underwent invasive coronary angiography. These utilization patterns resulted in 10-year health care costs of $23,142. The largest proportion of costs was associated with CVD medication use (78%). Approximately $2 of every $10 were spent for outpatient visits and diagnostic testing among the elderly, obese, those with a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level >3 mg/l, or coronary artery calcium score (CACS) ≥400. Costs varied widely from <$7,700 for low-risk (Framingham risk score <6%, 0 CACS, and normal glucose measurements at baseline) to >$35,800 for high-risk (persons with diabetes, Framingham risk score ≥20%, or CACS ≥400) subgroups. Among high-risk enrollees, CVD costs accounted for $74 million of the $155 million consumed by MESA participants. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal patterns of health care resource use after screening revealed new evidence on the economic burden of treatment and testing patterns not previously reported. Maintenance of a healthy population has the potential to markedly reduce the economic burden of CVD among asymptomatic individuals.

Hospital variation in admission to intensive care units for patients with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was transformed by the introduction of intensive care units (ICUs), yet we know little about how contemporary hospitals use this resource-intensive setting and whether higher use is associated with better outcomes. METHODS: We identified 114,136 adult hospitalizations for AMI from 307 hospitals in the 2009 to 2010 Premier database using codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification. Hospitals were stratified into quartiles by rates of ICU admission for AMI patients. Across quartiles, we examined in-hospital risk-standardized mortality rates and usage rates of critical care therapies for these patients. RESULTS: Rates of ICU admission for AMI patients varied markedly among hospitals (median 48%, Q1-Q4 20%-71%, range 0%-98%), and there was no association with in-hospital risk-standardized mortality rates (6% all quartiles, P = .7). However, hospitals admitting more AMI patients to the ICU were more likely to use critical care therapies overall (mechanical ventilation [from Q1 with lowest rate of ICU use to Q4 with highest rate 13%-16%], vasopressors/inotropes [17%-21%], intra-aortic balloon pumps [4%-7%], and pulmonary artery catheters [4%-5%]; P for trend < .05 in all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ICU admission for patients with AMI vary substantially across hospitals and were not associated with differences in mortality, but were associated with greater use of critical care therapies. These findings suggest uncertainty about the appropriate use of this resource-intensive setting and a need to optimize ICU triage for patients who will truly benefit.

Approaches to enhancing radiation safety in cardiovascular imaging: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Education, justification, and optimization are the cornerstones to enhancing the radiation safety of medical imaging. Education regarding the benefits and risks of imaging and the principles of radiation safety is required for all clinicians in order for them to be able to use imaging optimally. Empowering patients with knowledge of the benefits and risks of imaging will facilitate their meaningful participation in decisions related to their health care, which is necessary to achieve patient-centered care. Limiting the use of imaging to appropriate clinical indications can ensure that the benefits of imaging outweigh any potential risks. Finally, the continually expanding repertoire of techniques that allow high-quality imaging with lower radiation exposure should be used when available to achieve safer imaging. The implementation of these strategies in practice is necessary to achieve high-quality, patient-centered imaging and will require a shared effort and investment by all stakeholders, including physicians, patients, national scientific and educational organizations, politicians, and industry.

Hospital variation in the use of noninvasive cardiac imaging and its association with downstream testing, interventions, and outcomes.

IMPORTANCE Current guidelines allow substantial discretion in use of noninvasive cardiac imaging for patients without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who are being evaluated for ischemia. Imaging use may affect downstream testing and outcomes. OBJECTIVE To characterize hospital variation in use of noninvasive cardiac imaging and the association of imaging use with downstream testing, interventions, and outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional study of hospitals using 2010 administrative data from Premier, Inc, including patients with suspected ischemia on initial evaluation who were seen in the emergency department, observation unit, or inpatient ward; received at least 1 cardiac biomarker test on day 0 or 1; and had a principal discharge diagnosis for a common cause of chest discomfort, a sign or symptom of cardiac ischemia, and/or a comorbidity associated with coronary disease. We excluded patients with AMI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES At each hospital, the proportion of patients who received noninvasive imaging to identify cardiac ischemia and the subsequent rates of admission, coronary angiography, and revascularization procedures. RESULTS We identified 549,078 patients at 224 hospitals. The median (interquartile range) hospital noninvasive imaging rate was 19.8% (10.9%-27.7%); range, 0.2% to 55.7%. Median hospital imaging rates by quartile were Q1, 6.0%; Q2, 15.9%; Q3, 23.5%; Q4, 34.8%. Compared with Q1, Q4 hospitals had higher rates of admission (Q1, 32.1% vs Q4, 40.0%), downstream coronary angiogram (Q1, 1.2% vs Q4, 4.9%), and revascularization procedures (Q1, 0.5% vs Q4, 1.9%). Hospitals in Q4 had a lower yield of revascularization for noninvasive imaging (Q1, 7.6% vs Q4, 5.4%) and for angiograms (Q1, 41.2% vs Q4, 38.8%). P <.001 for all comparisons. Readmission rates to the same hospital for AMI within 2 months were not different by quartiles (P = .51). Approximately 23% of variation in imaging use was attributable to the behavior of individual hospitals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hospitals vary in their use of noninvasive cardiac imaging in patients with suspected ischemia who do not have AMI. Hospitals with higher imaging rates did not have substantially different rates of therapeutic interventions or lower readmission rates for AMI but were more likely to admit patients and perform angiography.

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.

Changes in geographic variation in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention for stable ischemic heart disease after publication of the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical uncertainty is cited as a cause of geographic variation. However, little is known about the effect of comparative effectiveness research on variation. We examined whether geographic variation in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) declined after publication of the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined changes in utilization and geographic variation in 67 hospital referral regions using the State Inpatient Databases. We compared age- and sex-adjusted rates of PCI for SIHD before (2006) and after (2008) publication of the COURAGE trial and compared those with contemporaneous changes in PCI volume for acute coronary syndrome. A total of 272,659 PCIs for SIHD from 526 hospitals were included in the analysis. After the publication of the COURAGE trial, PCI volume for SIHD declined by 25% (P<0.001) and decreased by 12% for acute coronary syndrome (P<0.001). This was predominantly attributable to changes in hospital referral regions with the highest levels of utilization pre-COURAGE trial (35% decline in the highest tertile versus 18% in the lowest). As measured by the systematic component of variation, there was substantial geographic variation in the use of PCI for SIHD preceding the publication of the COURAGE trial. Variation declined by 28% (0.53 versus 0.40) after publication, but geographic variation remained higher for SIHD than acute coronary syndrome (0.40 versus 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: There was a substantial decline in the use of and geographic variation in PCI for SIHD after the publication of the COURAGE trial. However, geographic variation in the use of PCI for SIHD remained high.

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.

Influence of sex on risk stratification with stress myocardial perfusion Rb-82 positron emission tomography: Results from the PET (Positron Emission Tomography) Prognosis Multicenter Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current analysis was to compare sex differences in the prognostic accuracy of stress myocardial perfusion rubidum-82 (Rb-82) positron emission tomography (PET). BACKGROUND: The diagnostic evaluation of women presenting with suspected cardiac symptoms is challenging with reported reduced accuracy, attenuation artifact, and more recent concerns regarding radiation safety. Stress myocardial perfusion Rb-82 PET is a diagnostic alternative with improved image quality and radiation dosimetry. Currently, the prognostic accuracy of stress Rb-82 PET in women has not been established. METHODS: A total of 6,037 women and men were enrolled in the PET Prognosis Multicenter Registry. Patients were followed for the occurrence of coronary artery disease (CAD) mortality, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate CAD mortality. The net re-classification improvement index (NRI) was calculated. RESULTS: The 5-year CAD mortality was 3.7% for women and 6.0% for men (p < 0.0001). Unadjusted CAD mortality ranged from 0.9% to 12.9% for women (p < 0.0001) and from 1.5% to 17.4% for men (p < 0.0001) for 0% to ≥15% abnormal myocardium at stress. In multivariable models, the percentage of abnormal stress myocardium was independently predictive of CAD mortality in women and men. An interaction term of sex by the percentage of abnormal stress myocardium was nonsignificant (p = 0.39). The categorical NRI when Rb-82 PET data was added to a clinical risk model was 0.12 for women and 0.17 for men. Only 2 cardiac deaths were reported in women <55 years of age; accordingly the percentage of abnormal myocardium at stress was of borderline significance (p = 0.063), but it was highly significant for women ≥55 years of age (p < 0.0001), with an increased NRI of 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 0.34), including 17% of CAD deaths and 3.9% of CAD survivors that were correctly re-classified in this older female subset. CONCLUSIONS: Stress Rb-82 PET provides significant and clinically meaningful effective risk stratification of women and men, supporting this modality as an alternative to comparative imaging modalities. Rb-82 PET findings were particularly helpful at identifying high-risk, older women.

Determinants of fluoroscopy time for invasive coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the NCDR(®).

OBJECTIVES: Identifying the distributions and determinants of fluoroscopy time for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: ICA and PCI are significant contributors to radiation exposure from medical imaging in the US. Fluoroscopy time is a potentially modifiable determinant of radiation exposure for these procedures, but has not been well characterized in contemporary practice. METHODS: We evaluated the distribution of fluoroscopy time in patients undergoing ICA and/or PCI in the CathPCI Registry(®) , stratifying patients by numerous clinical scenarios. Hierarchical models were used to determine patient, procedure, operator and hospital-level factors associated with fluoroscopy time for these procedures. RESULTS: Our study included a total of 3,295,348 ICA and PCI procedures performed by 9,600 operators from January 2005 through June 2009. There was wide variation in fluoroscopy times for these procedures with median [IQR] fluoroscopy times of 2.6 [1.7-4.5] minutes for ICA, 6.7 [4.2-10.8] minutes for ICA in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 10.1 [6.0-17.4] minutes for PCI, 10.7 [7.0-16.9] minutes for PCI with ICA, and 16.0 [10.6-24.0] minutes for PCI and ICA in patients with prior CABG. Prolonged fluoroscopy times (>30 minutes) were rare for ICA, but occurred in 6.7% of PCIs and 14.7% of PCIs in patients with prior CABG. After accounting for patient characteristics and procedure complexity, operator and hospital-level factors explained nearly 20% of the variation in fluoroscopy time. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy times vary widely during ICA and PCI with operator and hospital-level factors contributing substantially to these differences. A better understanding of potentially modifiable sources of this variation will elucidate opportunities for enhancing the radiation safety of these procedures.

The evolving practice of nuclear cardiology: results from the 2011 ASNC member survey.

BACKGROUND: Today's imaging laboratories face challenges including reimbursement, prior authorization, and accreditation standards. The impact on the practice of nuclear cardiology in the United States is unknown. We conducted a survey of ASNC members to provide a snapshot of nuclear cardiology imaging laboratories in 2011. METHODS AND RESULTS: The survey identified practice patterns including personnel, volumes, protocols used, and laboratory characteristics. We employed random sampling methodology stratified geographically. The response rate was 19.5% (73/374 laboratories). A non-random survey conducted in 2001 of 25 laboratories served as a comparator. A total of 73 laboratories, representing 202 physicians and 177 technologists responded. The reported median procedural volume was 1,225 studies annually; 88.9% of laboratories were accredited. Compared with 2001, dual isotope imaging protocol use dropped from 72% to 15.6%. Five markers of quality were surveyed. Half of laboratories use the American College of Cardiology's Appropriate Use Criteria, 61% used segmental scoring, and 32% provided guidance on post-test therapeutic management. 89% perform catheterization correlations while only 33% implemented radiation dose tracking. CONCLUSIONS: This survey of ASNC members provides critical information on nuclear cardiology practice to better target and service our members' needs. These data can prove invaluable to target educational needs and inform healthcare policy of contemporary nuclear cardiology practice.