ACC Appropriate Use Criteria Methodology: 2018 Update: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force

A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on surgical treatments for spinal metastasis

PURPOSE

As an important treatment for spinal metastasis, surgery has strict applicable conditions. Although various organizations have formulated different guidelines on surgical treatment for spinal metastasis (SM), there are certain differences in the content, standardization and quality of the guidelines and it is necessary to make a critical appraisal of them. We aim to systematically review and appraise the current guidelines on surgical treatments of SM and summarize the related recommendations with the quality evaluation of supporting evidence, as to provide a reference for the standardization of surgical treatment plans, and help clinical front-line medical workers can make safe and effective clinical decisions faster.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, and Embase for three major databases and online guideline databases. According to certain inclusion and exclusion criteria, the latest guidelines on the surgical treatment of SM were sorted out. AGREE II was used to evaluated the guideline's quality, and we extracted and compared the recommended treatment content of each guideline with evaluating by the evidence-grading scale.

RESULTS

Eight guidelines from 2013 to 2019 were included. Seven guidelines are comprehensive guidelines and one related to the reconstructive surgery of SM. Five guidelines were evaluated as "recommended," and three guidelines were evaluated as "recommended with modifications." Regarding the indications of surgery with SM, four guidelines, seven guidelines, seven guidelines, three guidelines and three guidelines recommended surgical treatment for patients with SM with intractable pain, mechanical instability, metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC), recurrent spinal metastasis (RSM), and survival predication, respectively. Regarding the surgical strategies, three guidelines recommended minimally invasive therapy but had strict indications. Six guidelines and five guidelines recommend palliative surgery and with receiving radiation therapy, respectively. For the aggressive surgery, only one guideline recommended to apply to patients in good general conditions who has isolated symptomatic SM. Regarding the surgical reconstructions, one guideline didn't recommend iliac bone graft and three guidelines recommended PMMA bone cement.

CONCLUSION

Most of the guidelines do not provide clear criteria for surgical application and provide more of a basic framework. The level of evidence for these surgical recommendations ranges from LOE B to D, and almost all guidelines recommend vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, but for palliative and more aggressive surgery, which recommended to personalize specific surgical strategies with multidisciplinary collaboration.

Surgical appropriateness nudges: Developing behavioral science nudges to integrate appropriateness criteria into the decision making of spine surgeons

BACKGROUND

Substantial variation exists in surgeon decision making. In response, multiple specialty societies have established criteria for the appropriate use of spine surgery. Yet few strategies exist to facilitate routine use of appropriateness criteria by surgeons. Behavioral science nudges are increasingly used to enhance decision making by clinicians. We sought to design "surgical appropriateness nudges" to support routine use of appropriateness criteria for degenerative lumbar scoliosis and spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

The work reflected Stage I of the NIH Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development and involved an iterative, multi-method approach, emphasizing qualitative methods. Study sites included two large referral centers for spine surgery. We recruited spine surgeons from both sites for two rounds of focus groups. To produce preliminary nudge prototypes, we examined sources of variation in surgeon decision making (Focus Group 1) and synthesized existing knowledge of appropriateness criteria, behavioral science nudge frameworks, electronic tools, and the surgical workflow. We refined nudge prototypes via feedback from content experts, site leaders, and spine surgeons (Focus Group 2). Concurrently, we collected data on surgical practices and outcomes at study sites. We pilot tested the refined nudge prototypes among spine surgeons, and surveyed them about nudge applicability, acceptability, and feasibility (scale 1-5, 5 = strongly agree).

RESULTS

Fifteen surgeons participated in focus groups, giving substantive input and feedback on nudge design. Refined nudge prototypes included: individualized surgeon score cards (frameworks: descriptive social norms/peer comparison/feedback), online calculators embedded in the EHR (decision aid/mapping), a multispecialty case conference (injunctive norms/social influence), and a preoperative check (reminders/ salience of information/ accountable justification). Two nudges (score cards, preop checks) incorporated data on surgeon practices and outcomes. Six surgeons pilot tested the refined nudges, and five completed the survey (83%). The overall mean score was 4.0 (standard deviation [SD] 0.5), with scores of 3.9 (SD 0.5) for applicability, 4.1 (SD 0.5) for acceptability, and 4.0 (SD 0.5), for feasibility. Conferences had the highest scores 4.3 (SD 0.6) and calculators the lowest 3.9 (SD 0.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioral science nudges might be a promising strategy for facilitating incorporation of appropriateness criteria into the surgical workflow of spine surgeons. Future stages in intervention development will test whether these surgical appropriateness nudges can be implemented in practice and influence surgical decision making.

Scientific document development standards for the society of cardiovascular computed tomography (SCCT): A statement from the SCCT Guidelines Committee

The Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) is an international community of physicians, scientists and technologists advocating for research, education, and clinical excellence in the use of cardiovascular computed tomography (CCT). SCCT members are committed to improving health outcomes through effective use of CCT. The SCCT routinely authors, endorses, and jointly collaborates on scientific documents that reflect the best available evidence and expert consensus supported in practice of CCT. This paper outlines SCCT's methodology for developing scientific documents. It was formulated by members of the SCCT Guidelines Committee and approved by the SCCT Board of Directors.

ACC/AHA/ASE/ASNC/ASPC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2023 Multimodality Appropriate Use Criteria for the Detection and Risk Assessment of Chronic Coronary Disease

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) Foundation, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures for risk assessment and evaluation of known or suspected chronic coronary disease (CCD), formerly referred to as stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging, 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. As with the prior version of this document, rating of test modalities is provided side-by-side for a given clinical scenario. These ratings are explicitly not considered competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and the range of capabilities available in any given local setting1-4.This version of the AUC for CCD is a focused update of the prior version of the AUC for SIHD4. Key changes beyond the updated ratings based on new evidence include the following: 1. Clinical scenarios related to preoperative testing were removed and will be incorporated into another AUC document under development. 2. Some clinical scenarios and tables were removed in an effort to simplify the selection of clinical scenarios. Additionally, the flowchart of tables has been reorganized, and all clinical scenario tables can now be reached by answering a limited number of clinical questions about the patient, starting with the patient's symptom status. 3. Several clinical scenarios have been revised to incorporate changes in other documents such as pretest probability assessment, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk assessment, syncope, and others. ASCVD risk factors that are not accounted for in contemporary risk calculators have been added as modifiers to certain clinical scenarios. The 64 clinical scenarios rated in this document are limited to the detection and risk assessment of CCD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines.5 These clinical scenarios do not specifically address patients having acute chest pain episodes. They may, however, be applicable in the inpatient setting if the patient is not having an acute coronary syndrome and warrants evaluation for CCD.Using standardized methodology, clinical scenarios were developed to describe common patient encounters in clinical practice focused on common applications and anticipated uses of testing for CCD. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current ACC/American Heart Association guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9, following a modified Delphi process consistent with the recently updated AUC development methodology. 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 rarely appropriate.

Appropriateness of cardiovascular computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in patients with conotruncal defects

BACKGROUND

To promote the rational use of cardiovascular imaging in patients with congenital heart disease, the American College of Cardiology developed Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC), but its clinical application and pre-release benchmarks have not been evaluated. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and cardiovascular computed tomography (CCT) in patients with conotruncal defects and to identify factors associated with maybe or rarely appropriate (M/R) indications.

METHODS

Twelve centers each contributed a median of 147 studies performed prior to AUC publication (01/2020) on patients with conotruncal defects. To incorporate patient characteristics and center-level effects, a hierarchical generalized linear mixed model was used.

RESULTS

Of the 1753 studies (80% CMR, and 20% CCT), 16% were rated M/R. Center M/R ranged from 4 to 39%. Infants accounted for 8.4% of studies. In multivariable analyses, patient- and study-level factors associated with M/R rating included: age <1 year (OR 1.90 [1.15-3.13]), truncus arteriosus (vs. tetralogy of Fallot, OR 2.55 [1.5-4.35]), and CCT (vs. CMR, OR 2.67 [1.87-3.83]). None of the provider- or center-level factors reached statistical significance in the multivariable model.

CONCLUSIONS

Most CMRs and CCTs ordered for the follow-up care of patients with conotruncal defects were rated appropriate. However, there was significant center-level variation in appropriateness ratings. Younger age, CCT, and truncus arteriosus were independently associated with higher odds of M/R rating. These findings could inform future quality improvement initiatives and further exploration of factors resulting in center-level variation.

Society for Vascular Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria for Management of Intermittent Claudication

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Management of Intermittent Claudication were created using the RAND appropriateness method (RAM) which is a validated and standardized methodology that combines best-available evidence from medical literature with expert opinion, using a modified-Delphi process. These criteria serve as a framework upon which individualized patient and clinician shared decision-making can grow. These criteria are not absolute. AUC should not be interpreted as a requirement to administer treatments rated as appropriate (benefit outweighs risk). Nor should AUC be interpreted as a prohibition on treatments rated as inappropriate (risk outweighs benefit). There will be clinical situations in which moderating factors, not included in these AUC, will shift the appropriateness level of a treatment for an individual patient. Proper implementation of AUC calls for a description of those moderating patient factors. For scenarios with an indeterminate rating, clinician judgement combined with best available evidence should determine treatment strategy. Importantly, these are scenarios in need of mechanisms to track treatment decisions and outcomes. AUC should be revisited on a periodic basis to ensure that these criteria remain relevant. The panelists rated 2280 unique scenarios for the treatment of intermittent claudication (IC) in the aortoiliac, common femoral and femoropopliteal segment in Round 2 rating. Of these, only 9 (0.4%) had disagreement according to the IPRAS formula, indicating an exceptionally high degree of consensus among the panelists. [Note, post-hoc, the term, "inappropriate," was replaced with the term "R>B" (risk outweighs benefit). The term "appropriate" was also replaced with "B>R" (benefit outweighs risk)]. The key principles for the management of intermittent claudication reflected within these AUC are: (1) Exercise therapy is a preferred initial management strategy for all patients with IC. (2) For patients who have not completed exercise therapy, invasive therapy may provide net benefit in selected patients with IC who are non-smokers, are taking optimal medical therapy, are considered low physiologic and technical risk, and who are experiencing severe lifestyle limitation and/or short walking distance. (3) Considering the long-term durability of currently available technology, invasive interventions for femoropopliteal disease should be reserved for patients with severe lifestyle limitation and short walking distance. (4) In the common femoral segment, open common femoral endarterectomy provides greater net benefit than endovascular intervention for the treatment of IC. (5) In the infrapopliteal segment, invasive intervention for the treatment of intermittent claudication is of unclear benefit and may be harmful.

Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are common, potentially harmful, and costly. Nearly half of the patients in the United States will receive at least 1 low-value test or procedure annually, creating risk of avoidable complications from subsequent cascades of care and excess costs to patients and society. Reducing low-value care is of particular importance to cardiovascular health given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States. This scientific statement describes the current scope and impact of low-value cardiovascular care; reviews existing literature on patient-, clinician-, health system-, payer-, and policy-level interventions to reduce low-value care; proposes solutions to achieve meaningful and equitable reductions in low-value care; and suggests areas for future research priorities.

Cost and Value in Contemporary Heart Failure Clinical Guidance Documents

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the frequency and nature of cost/value statements in contemporary heart failure (HF) clinical guidance documents (CGDs).

BACKGROUND

In an era of rising health care costs and expanding therapeutic options, there is an increasing need for formal consideration of cost and value in the development of HF CGDs.

METHODS

HF CGDs published by major professional cardiovascular organizations between January 2010 and February 2021 were reviewed for the inclusion of cost/value statements.

RESULTS

Overall, 33 documents were identified, including 5 (15%) appropriate use criteria, 7 (21%) clinical practice guidelines, and 21 (64%) expert consensus documents. Most CGDs (27 of 33; 82%) included at least 1 cost/value statement, and 20 (61%) CGDs included at least 1 cost/value-related citation. Most of these statements were found in expert consensus documents (77.7%). Three (9%) documents reported estimated costs of recommended interventions, but only 1 estimated out-of-pocket cost. Of 179 cost/value-related statements observed, 116 (64.8%) highlighted the economic impact of HF or HF-related care, 6 (3.4%) advocated for cost/value issues, 15 (8.4%) reported gaps in cost/value evidence, and 42 (23.5%) supported clinical guidance recommendations. Over time, patterns of inclusion of statements and citations of cost/value have been largely stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most contemporary HF CGDs contain at least 1 cost/value statement, most CGDs focus on the high economic impact of HF and its related care; explicit inclusion of cost/value to support clinical guidance recommendations remains infrequent. These results highlight key opportunities for the integration of formalized cost/value considerations in future HF-focused CGDs.

The appropriate use criteria: Improvements for its integration into real world clinical practice

The purpose of this position statement is to suggest ways in which future appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization might be restructured to: (1) incorporate improvement in quality of life and angina relief as primary goals of therapy, (2) integrate the findings of recent trials into quality appraisal, (3) employ the combined information of the coronary angiogram and invasive physiologic measurements together with the results of stress test imaging to assess risk, and (4) recognize the essential role that patient preference plays in making individualized therapeutic decisions. The AUC is a valuable tool within the quality assurance process; it is vital that interventionists ensure that percutaneous coronary intervention case selection is both evidence-based and patient oriented. Appropriate patient selection is an important quality indicator and adherence to evidence-based practice should be one metric in a portfolio of process and outcome indicators that measure quality.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines development principles and processes

Clinical guidelines are developed by professional societies and also, in England, by an independent non-departmental public body, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Similarities and differences between these guidelines should be viewed in the context of different objectives, responsibilities and roles of guideline developers. This review describes the NICE clinical guidelines development principles and processes with the aim to provide the reader an informed perspective on the recommendations made. NICE clinical guidelines are developed by an appointed independent advisory committee comprising healthcare professionals as well as lay members, supported by a professional team comprising project managers, information specialists, systematic reviewers and health economists. Furthermore, registered stakeholders comprising organisations that have an interest in the guideline topic, or represent people whose practice or care may be directly affected by the guideline, are consulted on the draft scope and draft guidelines. NICE selects a limited number of high impact questions to be answered by the review of evidence, rather than cover a certain topic exhaustively as the clinical guidelines developed by professional societies may do. NICE clinical guidelines recommendations reflect both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Implementation of appropriate use criteria for cardiology tests and procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The American College of Cardiology appropriate use criteria (AUC) provide clinicians with evidence-informed recommendations for cardiac care. Adopting AUC into clinical workflows may present challenges, and there may be specific implementation strategies that are effective in promoting effective use of AUC. We sought to assess the effect of implementing AUC in clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a meta-analysis of studies found through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, or CINAHL databases. Peer-reviewed manuscripts published after 2005 that reported on the implementation of AUC for a cardiovascular test or procedure were included. The main outcome was to determine if AUC implementation was associated with a reduction in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care. Of the 18 included studies, the majority used pre/post-cohort designs; few (n = 3) were randomized trials. Most studies used multiple strategies (n = 12, 66.7%). Education was the most common individual intervention strategy (n = 13, 72.2%), followed by audit and feedback (n = 8, 44.4%) and computerized physician order entry (n = 6, 33.3%). No studies reported on formal use of stakeholder engagement or 'nudges'. In meta-analysis, AUC implementation was associated with a reduction in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.78). Funnel plot suggests the possibility of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

We found most published efforts to implement AUC observed reductions in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care. Studies rarely explored how or why the implementation strategy was effective. Because interventions were infrequently tested in isolation, it is difficult to make observations about their effectiveness as stand-alone strategies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091602. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018091602.

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.

Assessing the association of appropriateness of coronary revascularization and 1-year clinical outcomes for patients with stable coronary artery disease in China

BACKGROUND

The Chinese appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization was released in 2016 to improve the use of coronary revascularization. This study aimed to evaluate the association between the appropriateness of coronary revascularization based on the Chinese AUC and 1-year outcomes in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multi-center cohort study of stable CAD patients with coronary lesion stenosis ≥50%. After the classification of appropriateness based on Chinese AUC, patients were categorized into the coronary revascularization group or the medical therapy group based on treatment received. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeated revascularization, and ischemic symptoms with hospital admission.

RESULTS

From August 2016 to August 2017, 6085 patients were consecutively enrolled. Coronary revascularization was associated with a lower adjusted hazard of 1-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-0.86; P = 0.004) than medical therapy in patients with appropriate indications (n = 1617). No significant benefit in 1-year MACCEs was found after revascularization compared to after medical therapy in patients with uncertain indications (n = 2658, HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.52-1.25; P = 0.338) and inappropriate indications (n = 1810, HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.51-1.23; P = 0.308).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with appropriate indications according to Chinese AUC, coronary revascularization was associated with significantly lower risk of MACCEs at 1 year. No benefit was found in coronary revascularization in patients with inappropriate indications. Our findings provide evidence for using Chinese AUC to guide clinical decision-making.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02880605. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases, reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness

OBJECTIVE

To determine percent of patients without malignancy and ≤ 40 years of age with high cumulative radiation doses through recurrent CT exams and assess imaging appropriateness.

METHODS

From the cohort of patients who received cumulative effective dose (CED) of ≥ 100 mSv over a 5-year period, a sub-set was identified with non-malignant disease. The top 50 clinical indications leading to multiple CTs were determined. Clinical decision support (CDS) system scores were analyzed using a widely adopted standard of 1-3 (red) as "not usually appropriate," 4-6 (yellow) "may or may not be appropriate," and 7-9 (green) "usually appropriate." Clinicians reviewed patient records to assess compliance with appropriate use criteria (AUC).

RESULTS

9.6% of patients in our series were with non-malignant conditions and 1.4% with age ≤ 40 years. CDS scores (rounded) were 2% red, 38% yellow, 27% green, and 33% unscored CTs. Clinical society guidelines for CT exams, wherever available, were followed in 87.5 to 100% of cases. AUCs were not available for several clinical indications as also referral guidelines for serial CT imaging. More than half of CT exams were unrelated to follow-up of a primary chronic disease.

CONCLUSIONS

We are faced with a situation wherein patients in age ≤ 40 years require or are thought to require many CT exams over the course of a few years but the radiation risk creates concern. There is a fair number of conditions for which AUC are not available. Suggested solutions include development of CT scanners with lesser radiation dose and further development of appropriateness criteria.

KEY POINTS

We are faced with a situation wherein patients in age group 0-40 years and with non-malignant diagnosis require or are thought to require many CT exams over the course of a few years. More than half of CT exams were unrelated to follow-up of a primary chronic disease. Imaging guidelines and appropriateness use criteria are not available for many conditions. Wherever available, they are for initial work-up and diagnosis and there is a lack of guidance on serial CT imaging.

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 document (J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1647-1672) 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.

Appropriateness of Cardiac Troponin Testing: Insights from the Use of TROPonin In Acute coronary syndromes (UTROPIA) Study

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to examine the appropriateness of cardiac troponin (cTn) testing among patients with cTn increases.

METHODS

This is a planned secondary analysis of the Use of TROPonin In Acute coronary syndromes (UTROPIA, NCT02060760) observational cohort study. Appropriateness of cTn testing was adjudicated for emergency department patients with cTn increases >99^th percentile and analyzed using both contemporary and high-sensitivity (hs) cTnI assays according to sub-specialty, diagnoses, and symptoms.

RESULTS

Appropriateness was determined from 1272 and 1078 adjudication forms completed for 497 and 422 patients with contemporary and hs-cTnI increases, respectively. Appropriateness of cTnI testing across adjudication forms was 71.5% and 72.0% for cTnI and hs-cTnI, respectively. Compared with emergency physicians, cardiologists were less likely to classify cTnI orders as appropriate (cTnI: 79% vs 56%, P < .0001; hs-cTnI: 82% vs 51%, P < .0001). For contemporary cTnI, appropriateness of 95%, 70%, and 39% was observed among adjudication forms completed by cardiologists for type 1 myocardial infarction, type 2 myocardial infarction, and myocardial injury, respectively; compared with 90%, 86%, and 71%, respectively, among emergency physicians. Similar findings were observed using hs-cTnI. Discordance in appropriateness adjudication forms occurred most frequently in cases of myocardial injury (62% both assays) or type 2 myocardial infarction (cTnI 31%; hs-cTnI 23%).

CONCLUSIONS

Marked differences exist in the perception of what constitutes appropriate clinical use of cTn testing between cardiologists and emergency physicians, with emergency physicians more likely to see testing as appropriate across a range of clinical scenarios. Discordance derives most often from cases classified as myocardial injury or type 2 myocardial infarction.

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.