ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected New-Onset and Known Nonacute Heart Failure

A systematic review for the evidence of recommendations and guidelines in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of expert recommendations and guidelines for clinical indications and procedurals in hybrid nuclear cardiovascular imaging.

METHODS

From inception to August 2023, a PubMed literature analysis of the latest version of guidelines for clinical hybrid cardiovascular imaging techniques including SPECT(/CT), PET(/CT), and PET(/MRI) was performed in two categories: (1) for clinical indications for all-in primary diagnosis; subgroup in prognosis and therapy evaluation; and for (2) imaging procedurals. We surveyed to what degree these followed a standard methodology to collect the data and provide levels of evidence, and for which topic systematic review evidence was executed.

RESULTS

A total of 76 guidelines, published between 2013 and 2023, were included. The evidence of guidelines was based on systematic reviews in 7.9% of cases, non-systematic reviews in 47.4% of cases, a mix of systematic and non-systematic reviews in 19.7%, and 25% of guidelines did not report any evidence. Search strategy was reported in 36.8% of cases. Strengths of recommendation were clearly reported in 25% of guidelines. The notion of external review was explicitly reported in 23.7% of cases. Finally, the support of a methodologist was reported in 11.8% of the included guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The use of evidence procedures for developing for evidence-based cardiovascular hybrid imaging recommendations and guidelines is currently suboptimal, highlighting the need for more standardized methodological procedures.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Preprocedural Planning for Left Atrial Procedures in Atrial Fibrillation

This document summarizes the relevant literature for the selection of preprocedural imaging in three clinical scenarios in patients needing endovascular treatment or cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. These clinical scenarios include preprocedural imaging prior to radiofrequency ablation; prior to left atrial appendage occlusion; and prior to cardioversion. The appropriateness of imaging modalities as they apply to each clinical scenario is rated as usually appropriate, may be appropriate, and usually not appropriate to assist the selection of the most appropriate imaging modality in the corresponding clinical scenarios. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Computed tomography or chest X-ray to assess pulmonary congestion in dyspnoeic patients with acute heart failure

AIMS

While computed tomography (CT) is widely acknowledged as superior to chest radiographs for acute diagnostics, its efficacy in diagnosing acute heart failure (AHF) remains unexplored. This prospective study included consecutive patients with dyspnoea undergoing simultaneous low-dose chest CT (LDCT) and chest radiographs. Here, we aimed to determine if LDCT is superior to chest radiographs to confirm pulmonary congestion in dyspnoeic patients with suspected AHF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An observational, prospective study, including dyspnoeic patients from the emergency department. All patients underwent concurrent clinical examination, laboratory tests, echocardiogram, chest radiographs, and LDCT. The primary efficacy measure to compare the two radiological methods was conditional odds ratio (cOR). The primary outcome was adjudicated AHF, ascertained by comprehensive expert consensus. The secondary outcome, echo-bnp AHF, was an objective AHF diagnosis based on echocardiographic cardiac dysfunction, elevated cardiac filling pressure, loop diuretic administration, and NT-pro brain natriuretic peptide > 300 pg/mL. Of 228 dyspnoeic patients, 64 patients (28%) had adjudicated AHF, and 79 patients (35%) had echo-bnp AHF. Patients with AHF were older (78 years vs. 73 years), had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (36% vs. 55%), had higher elevated left ventricular filling pressures (98% vs. 18%), and had higher NT-pro brain natriuretic peptide levels (3628 pg/mL vs. 470 pg/mL). The odds to diagnose adjudicated AHF and echo-bnp AHF were up to four times greater using LDCT (cOR: 3.89 [2.15, 7.06] and cOR: 2.52 [1.45, 4.38], respectively). For each radiologic sign of pulmonary congestion, the LDCT provided superior or equivalent results as the chest radiographs, and the interrater agreement was higher using LDCT (kappa 0.88 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.95] vs. 0.73 [95% CI: 0.63, 0.82]). As first-line imaging modality, LDCT will find one additional adjudicated AHF in 12.5 patients and prevent one false-positive in 20 patients. Similar results were demonstrated for echo-bnp AHF.

CONCLUSIONS

In consecutive dyspnoeic patients admitted to the emergency department, LDCT is significantly better than chest radiographs in detecting pulmonary congestion.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Dyspnea-Suspected Cardiac Origin (Ischemia Already Excluded): 2021 Update

Dyspnea is the symptom of perceived breathing discomfort and is commonly encountered in a variety of clinical settings. Cardiac etiologies of dyspnea are an important consideration; among these, valvular heart disease (Variant 1), arrhythmia (Variant 2), and pericardial disease (Variant 3) are reviewed in this document. Imaging plays an important role in the clinical assessment of these suspected abnormalities, with usually appropriate procedures including resting transthoracic echocardiography in all three variants, radiography for Variants 1 and 3, MRI heart function and morphology in Variants 2 and 3, and CT heart function and morphology with intravenous contrast for Variant 3. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nonischemic Myocardial Disease with Clinical Manifestations (Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Already Excluded)

Nonischemic cardiomyopathies encompass a broad spectrum of myocardial disorders with mechanical or electrical dysfunction without evidence of ischemia. There are five broad variants of nonischemic cardiomyopathies; hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (Variant 1), restrictive or infiltrative cardiomyopathy (Variant 2), dilated or unclassified cardiomyopathy (Variant 3), arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (Variant 4), and inflammatory cardiomyopathy (Variant 5). For variants 1, 3, and 4, resting transthoracic echocardiography, MRI heart function and morphology without and with contrast, and MRI heart function and morphology without contrast are the usually appropriate imaging modalities. For variants 2 and 5, resting transthoracic echocardiography and MRI heart function and morphology without and with contrast are the usually appropriate imaging modalities. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Syncope

Syncope and presyncope lead to well over one million emergency room visits in the United States each year. Elucidating the cause of syncope or presyncope, which are grouped together given similar etiologies and outcomes, can be exceedingly difficult given the diverse etiologies. This becomes more challenging as some causes, such as vasovagal syncope, are relatively innocuous while others, such as cardiac-related syncope, carry a significant increased risk of death. While the mainstay of syncope and presyncope assessment is a detailed history and physical examination, imaging can play a role in certain situations. In patients where a cardiovascular etiology is suspected based on the appropriate history, physical examination, and ECG findings, resting transthoracic echocardiography is usually considered appropriate for the initial imaging. While no imaging studies are considered usually appropriate when there is a low probability of cardiac or neurologic pathology, chest radiography may be appropriate in certain clinical situations. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.