Published Online
on March 19, 2009

A more recent version of this article appeared on May 1, 2009

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2/3/213    most recent CIRCIMAGING.108.798082v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McCully, R. B. Articles by Gibbons, R. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McCully, R. B. Articles by Gibbons, R. J. Related Collections Echocardiography Nuclear cardiology and PET Cardiovascular imaging agents/Techniques Exercise testing

Original Article

Applicability of Appropriateness Criteria for Stress Imaging: Similarities and Differences Between Stress Echocardiography and Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (SPECT MPI) Criteria

Robert B. McCully¹; Patricia A. Pellikka; David O. Hodge; Philip A. Araoz; Todd D. Miller and Raymond J. Gibbons

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

¹ E-mail: mccully.robert{at}mayo.edu

Background—Appropriateness criteria for stress imaging have been published to promote the effective use of stress nuclear scintigraphy and stress echocardiography. We sought to evaluate the application of the stress echocardiography appropriateness criteria to patients undergoing stress echocardiography in an academic medical center.

Methods and Results—The stress echocardiography criteria were applied to 298 consecutive patients who underwent stress echocardiography. Patients were rated as appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate, or not classifiable. Results were compared with those of a previous analysis in the same patients using the single-photon computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) criteria. The level of agreement between 2 cardiac nurse abstractors for categorizing appropriateness by the stress echocardiography criteria was good (=0.72). Overall, 54% of patients were classified as appropriate, 8% as uncertain, and 19% as inappropriate; 19% were not classifiable. By the SPECT MPI criteria, 64% of patients were classified as appropriate, 9% as uncertain, and 18% as inappropriate; 9% were not classifiable (P<.001 compared with stress echocardiography criteria). By the stress echocardiography criteria, 6 clinical situations or indications accounted for more than 90% of the inappropriate tests; most of these involved asymptomatic patients.

Conclusions—Applying stress echocardiography appropriateness criteria to a patient population is feasible, although 1 in 5 of our patients was not classifiable. Overall, the stress echocardiography criteria classified patients differently compared with the SPECT MPI criteria. Future refinements of the appropriateness criteria for stress imaging should address gaps in the criteria and disparities between the stress echocardiography and SPECT MPI criteria.

Key Words: coronary disease • echocardiography • imaging • scintigraphy • stress • tomography