A Policy Statement on Cardiovascular Test Substitution and Authorization: Principles of Patient-Centered Noninvasive Testing

Influence of Body Mass Index on Radiation Exposure Across Imaging Modalities in the Evaluation of Chest Pain

BACKGROUND

Essential to a patient-centered approach to imaging individuals with chest pain is knowledge of differences in radiation effective dose across imaging modalities. Body mass index (BMI) is an important and underappreciated predictor of effective dose. This study evaluated the impact of BMI on estimated radiation exposure across imaging modalities.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a retrospective analysis of patients with concern for cardiac ischemia undergoing positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT), cadmium zinc telluride single-photon emission CT (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging, or coronary CT angiography (CCTA) using state-of-the-art imaging modalities and optimal radiation-sparing protocols. Radiation exposure was calculated across BMI categories based on established cardiac imaging-specific conversion factors. Among 9046 patients (mean±SD age, 64.3±13.1 years; 55% men; mean±SD BMI, 30.6±6.9 kg/m2), 4787 were imaged with PET/CT, 3092 were imaged with SPECT/CT, and 1167 were imaged with CCTA. Median (interquartile range) radiation effective doses were 4.4 (3.9-4.9) mSv for PET/CT, 4.9 (4.0-6.3) mSv for SPECT/CT, and 6.9 (4.0-11.2) mSv for CCTA. Patients at a BMI <20 kg/m2 had similar radiation effective dose with all 3 imaging modalities, whereas those with BMI ≥20 kg/m2 had the lowest effective dose with PET/CT. Radiation effective dose and variability increased dramatically with CCTA as BMI increased, and was 10 times higher in patients with BMI >45 kg/m2 compared with <20 kg/m2 (median, 26.9 versus 2.6 mSv). After multivariable adjustment, PET/CT offered the lowest effective dose, followed by SPECT/CT, and then CCTA (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although median radiation exposure is modest across state-of-the-art PET/CT, SPECT/CT, and CCTA systems using optimal radiation-sparing protocols, there are significant variations across modalities based on BMI. These data are important for making patient-centered decisions for ischemic testing.

Cardiovascular hospitalizations for Medicare advantage beneficiaries in the United States, 2009 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Federal programs measuring hospital quality of care for acute cardiovascular conditions are based solely on Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries, and exclude Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries. In this study we characterize the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA at the time of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and ischemic stroke hospitalization.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional study of short-term acute care hospitals using Medicare claims in 2009 and 2019.

RESULTS

There were 2,653 hospitals in 2009 and 2,732 hospitals in 2019. Across hospitals, the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI who were enrolled in MA increased between 2009 (hospital-level median 14.4% [IQR 5.1%-26.0%]) and 2019 (33.3% [IQR 20.6%-45.2%]), with substantial variation across hospitals. Similar patterns were observed for HF (13.0% [IQR 5.3%-24.3%] to 31.0% [IQR 20.2%-42.3%]) and ischemic stroke (14.6% [IQR 5.3%-26.7%] to 33.3% [IQR 20.9%-46.0%]). Within each hospital referral region, hospital size (large 36.3% vs small 24.5%; adjusted difference 6.7%, 95% CI, 4.5%-8.8%), teaching status (teaching 34.5% vs nonteaching 28.2%; 2.8%, 1.4%-4.1%), and ownership status (private nonprofit 32.3% vs public 24.5%; 5.2%, 3.5%-6.9%) were each associated with a higher hospital MA proportion.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for AMI, HF, and ischemic stroke enrolled in MA doubled between 2009 and 2019, with substantial variation across hospitals. These findings have implications for federal efforts to measure and improve quality, which currently focus only on FFS beneficiaries.

Recognized and Unrecognized Value of Echocardiography in Guideline and Consensus Documents Regarding Patients With Chest Pain

Guideline and consensus documents have recently been published on the important topic of the noninvasive evaluation of patients presenting with chest pain (CP) or patients with known acute or chronic coronary syndromes. Authors for these documents have included members representing multispecialty imaging societies, yet the process of generating consensus and the need to produce concise written documents have led to a situation where the particular advantages of echocardiography are overlooked. Broad guidelines such as these can be helpful when it comes to "when to do" noninvasive cardiac testing, but they do not pretend to offer nuances on "how to do" noninvasive cardiac testing. This report details the particular value of echocardiography and potential explanations for its understated role in recent guidelines. This report is categorized into the following sections: (1) impact of the level of evidence on guideline creation; (2) versatility of echocardiography in the assessment of CP and the inimitable role for echo Doppler echocardiography in the assessment of dyspnea; (3) value of point-of-care ultrasound in assessing CP and dyspnea; and (4) the future role of echocardiography in ischemic heart disease.