ACR Appropriateness Criteria® on Chest Pain, Suggestive of Acute Coronary Syndrome

Comparing two methods for determining appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging: Criteria from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American College of Radiology

BACKGROUND

Appropriate use criteria (AUC) developed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the appropriateness criteria (AC) developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) are two existing methods of rating appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). One study found poor agreement of ratings between the two methods. However, using the most contemporary AUC from 2013, it is unknown if poor agreement still exists.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort investigation comparing patients undergoing nuclear MPI between June 2011 and September 2014. The appropriateness category was determined based on the 2013 AUC (Appropriate, may be appropriate, rarely appropriate) and the 2010 ACR AC (usually appropriate, maybe appropriate, usually not appropriate). The primary outcome was the degree of the agreement between the two methods.

RESULTS

The kappa coefficient between ACR AC and AUC was 0.32, P < 0.0001, indicating poor agreement; 40 (8%) patients were classified by the AUC but could not be classified by the ACR AC.

CONCLUSION

The two methods for rating the appropriateness of MPI have poor agreement; a potential for disagreement between providers and payers if only one method is used.

Comparing two methods for determining appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging: Criteria from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American College of Radiology

BACKGROUND

Appropriate use criteria (AUC) developed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the appropriateness criteria (AC) developed by the American College of Radiology (ACR) are two existing methods of rating appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). One study found poor agreement of ratings between the two methods. However, using the most contemporary AUC from 2013, it is unknown if poor agreement still exists.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort investigation comparing patients undergoing nuclear MPI between June 2011 and September 2014. The appropriateness category was determined based on the 2013 AUC (Appropriate, may be appropriate, rarely appropriate) and the 2010 ACR AC (usually appropriate, maybe appropriate, usually not appropriate). The primary outcome was the degree of the agreement between the two methods.

RESULTS

The kappa coefficient between ACR AC and AUC was 0.32, P < 0.0001, indicating poor agreement; 40 (8%) patients were classified by the AUC but could not be classified by the ACR AC.

CONCLUSION

The two methods for rating the appropriateness of MPI have poor agreement; a potential for disagreement between providers and payers if only one method is used.

Residents' performance in the interpretation of on-call "triple-rule-out" CT studies in patients with acute chest pain

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the performance of radiology residents in the interpretation of on-call, emergency "triple-rule-out" (TRO) computed tomographic (CT) studies in patients with acute chest pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was institutional review board-approved and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Data from 617 on-call TRO studies were analyzed. Dedicated software enables subspecialty attendings to grade discrepancies in interpretation between preliminary trainee reports and their final interpretation as "unlikely to be significant" (minor discrepancies) or "likely to be significant" for patient management (major discrepancies). The frequency of minor, major and all discrepancies in resident's TRO interpretations was compared to 609 emergent non-electrocardiography (ECG)-synchronized chest CT studies using Pearson χ(2) test.

RESULTS

Minor discrepancies occurred more often in the TRO group (9.1% vs. 3.9%, P < .001), but there was no difference in the frequency of major discrepancies (2.1% vs. 2.8%, P = .55). Minor discrepancies in the TRO group most commonly resulted from missed extrathoracic findings with missed liver lesions being the most frequent. Major discrepancies mostly encompassed cardiac and extracardiac vascular findings but did not result in unnecessary interventions, significant immediate changes in management, or adverse patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

On-call resident interpretation of TRO CT studies in patients with acute chest pain is congruent with final subspecialty attending interpretation in the overwhelming majority of cases. The rate of discrepancies likely to affect patient management in this domain is not different from emergent non-ECG-synchronized chest CT.

Diagnostic yield of coronary angiography in patients with acute chest pain: role of noninvasive test

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the diagnostic yield of invasive coronary angiography (CAG) and the impact of noninvasive test (NIV) in patients presented to emergency department (ED) with acute chest pain.

METHODS

Patients 50 years or older who visited ED with acute chest pain and underwent CAG were identified retrospectively. Those with ischemic electrocardiogram, elevated cardiac enzyme, known coronary artery disease (CAD), history of cardiac surgery, renal failure, or allergy to radiocontrast were excluded. Diagnostic yields of CAG to detect significant CAD or differentiate the need for revascularization were analyzed according to whether NIV was performed and its result.

RESULTS

Among the total 375 consecutive patients, significant CAD was observed in 244 (65.1%). Diagnostic yields of CAG were higher in patients who underwent NIV before CAG, but the discriminative effect was modest (59.7% vs 70.7% [P = .026] for detection of CAD; 45.0% vs 50.5% [P = .285] for revascularization). Positive results of NIV were significantly associated with the presence of CAD and the need for revascularization, when compared with patients without NIV or patients with negative results (P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic yield of CAG was only 65% in low- to intermediate-risk ED patients with acute chest pain. Performing of NIV provided only modest improvement in diagnostic yield of CAG. The unexpectedly low diagnostic yield might be attributable to the underuse of NIV and misinterpretation of physicians. We suggest the use of NIV as a gatekeeper to discriminate patients who require CAG and/or revascularization, and for this, better risk stratification and appropriate application of NIV are required.

Imaging strategies for acute chest pain in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Echocardiography, radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), and coronary CT angiography (CTA) are the three main imaging techniques used in the emergency department for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The purpose of this article is to quantitatively examine existing evidence about the diagnostic performance of these imaging tests in this setting.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic search of the medical literature showed no significant difference between the modalities for the detection of ACS in the emergency department. There was a slight, positive trend favoring coronary CTA. Given the absence of large differences in diagnostic performance, practical aspects such as local practice, expertise, medical facilities, and individual patient characteristics may be more important.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) acute nonspecific chest pain-low probability of coronary artery disease

This document outlines the usefulness of available diagnostic imaging for patients without known coronary artery disease and at low probability for having coronary artery disease who do not present with classic signs, symptoms, or electrocardiographic abnormalities indicating acute coronary syndrome but rather with nonspecific chest pain leading to a differential diagnosis, including pulmonary, gastrointestinal, or musculoskeletal pathologies. A number of imaging modalities are available to evaluate the broad spectrum of possible pathologies in these patients, such as chest radiography, multidetector CT, MRI, ventilation-perfusion scans, cardiac perfusion scintigraphy, transesophageal and transthoracic echocardiography, PET, spine and rib radiography, barium esophageal and upper gastrointestinal studies, and abdominal ultrasound. It is considered appropriate to start the assessment of these patients with a low-cost, low-risk diagnostic test such as a chest x-ray. Contrast-enhanced gated cardiac and ungated thoracic multidetector CT as well as transthoracic echocardiography are also usually considered as appropriate in the evaluation of these patients as a second step if necessary. A number of rest and stress single-photon emission CT myocardial perfusion imaging, ventilation-perfusion scanning, aortic and chest MR angiographic, and more specific x-ray and abdominal examinations may be appropriate as a third layer of testing, whereas MRI of the heart or coronary arteries and invasive testing such as transesophageal echocardiography or selective coronary angiography are not considered appropriate in these patients. Given the low risk of these patients, it is mandated to minimize radiation exposure as much as possible using advanced and appropriate testing protocols. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria® are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Evaluation of the aortic root with MRI and MDCT angiography: spectrum of disease findings

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the spectrum of disease processes that may involve the aortic root with particular emphasis on the role of cardiovascular MRI and MDCT angiography in their assessment. Key MRI and MDCT imaging findings are discussed and illustrated.

CONCLUSION

Radiologists should be aware of the spectrum of disease processes that may involve the aortic root and their appearances at MRI and MDCT angiography.

Adenosine stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance-observation unit management of patients at intermediate risk for acute coronary syndrome: a possible strategy for reducing healthcare-related costs

OPINION STATEMENT

Although clear algorithms for diagnosis and treatment of patients with chest pain at low or high risk for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) exist, they are less well delineated for patients presenting with chest pain with an intermediate risk for ACS. In patients presenting acutely or subacutely to emergency departments (EDs) at high risk for ACS, such as those with ST segment elevation on their 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), immediate contrast coronary angiography is performed. On the other hand, chest pain observation units (OUs) are recommended for managing those with chest pain at low risk for an ACS event. In this setting, these OUs are associated with lower healthcare resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness. Cost-effective diagnosis and treatment options are important goals in healthcare delivery systems. The presentation of patients at intermediate risk for ACS represents an emerging source of resource utilization for EDs. These patients often exhibit pre-existing coronary artery disease, may have sustained prior myocardial infarction, and exhibit multiple comorbidities such as diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. Importantly, however, they will not have evidence of ST elevation on their 12-lead ECG nor will they exhibit serum markers (troponin or creatinine kinase elevations) indicative of ACS. As a consequence of existing co-morbidities, their management becomes time-consuming and may require inpatient monitoring, observation, and cardiac stress testing. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a powerful tool for risk stratification and prognosis determination in patients in need of stress testing at intermediate risk of ACS. For those who present with acute chest pain syndromes, the combination of CMR in an OU setting represents a potentially attractive option for reducing healthcare-related expenditures without compromising patient outcomes. Recent study results from single centers suggest that CMR-OU care may result in fewer unnecessary hospital admissions and invasive procedures in those presenting with intermediate risk ACS. Further research utilizing stress CMR testing from multiple centers in OU settings is needed to determine if this model of care improves efficiency, reduces healthcare costs, and delivers optimum care in individuals presenting to EDs with chest pain at intermediate risk of ACS.