TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of cardiac computed tomography examination appropriateness under the 2010 revised versus the 2006 original Appropriate Use Criteria
AU - Wasfy, Meagan M.
AU - Brady, Thomas J.
AU - Abbara, Suhny
AU - Nasir, Khurram
AU - Hoffmann, Udo
AU - Cury, Ricardo C.
AU - Di Carli, Marcelo F.
AU - Blankstein, Ron
N1 - Funding Information:
Drs. Blankstein and Nasir received financial support from the National Institutes of Health (grant 1T32 HL076136-02 ).
PY - 2012/3
Y1 - 2012/3
N2 - Background: The 2006 Cardiac CT Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) were recently revised in 2010. In addition to rating an expanded number of indications, the new criteria adjusted the appropriateness of existing indications to reflect changes in clinical practice and new evidence since 2006. Objective: We sought to determine how the appropriateness of cardiac CT examinations performed at a tertiary-care hospital changed under the revised criteria compared with the original AUC. Methods: Data were collected from the medical records and personal interview of 267 consecutive patients referred for cardiac CT in 2008. With the use of the 2010 and 2006 AUCs, two physicians designated each examination's indication as appropriate, inappropriate, uncertain, or " not classified" if examination indication could not be assigned. Results: With the use the new 2010 AUC, a highly significant change was observed in the classification of examination appropriateness (. P < 0.001), with 40% of examinations changing appropriateness level compared with the 2006 AUC. Under the 2010 AUC, there were an increased proportion of both appropriate examinations (59% vs. 45%; . P < 0.001) and inappropriate examinations (15% vs. 10%; . P < 0.001), and approximately the same proportion with uncertain appropriateness (13% vs. 16%; . P = 0.33). Consequently, the proportion of examinations that were not classified was significantly reduced under the 2010 AUC (29% vs. 13%; . P < 0.001). Conclusion: The revision of the AUC for cardiac CT had a significant effect on examination appropriateness. In comparison to the 2006 AUC, the 2010 AUC provided improved clarification of examination appropriateness. This shift was because of the inclusion of many previously unaddressed indications and the designation of more examinations as either appropriate or inappropriate.
AB - Background: The 2006 Cardiac CT Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) were recently revised in 2010. In addition to rating an expanded number of indications, the new criteria adjusted the appropriateness of existing indications to reflect changes in clinical practice and new evidence since 2006. Objective: We sought to determine how the appropriateness of cardiac CT examinations performed at a tertiary-care hospital changed under the revised criteria compared with the original AUC. Methods: Data were collected from the medical records and personal interview of 267 consecutive patients referred for cardiac CT in 2008. With the use of the 2010 and 2006 AUCs, two physicians designated each examination's indication as appropriate, inappropriate, uncertain, or " not classified" if examination indication could not be assigned. Results: With the use the new 2010 AUC, a highly significant change was observed in the classification of examination appropriateness (. P < 0.001), with 40% of examinations changing appropriateness level compared with the 2006 AUC. Under the 2010 AUC, there were an increased proportion of both appropriate examinations (59% vs. 45%; . P < 0.001) and inappropriate examinations (15% vs. 10%; . P < 0.001), and approximately the same proportion with uncertain appropriateness (13% vs. 16%; . P = 0.33). Consequently, the proportion of examinations that were not classified was significantly reduced under the 2010 AUC (29% vs. 13%; . P < 0.001). Conclusion: The revision of the AUC for cardiac CT had a significant effect on examination appropriateness. In comparison to the 2006 AUC, the 2010 AUC provided improved clarification of examination appropriateness. This shift was because of the inclusion of many previously unaddressed indications and the designation of more examinations as either appropriate or inappropriate.
KW - Appropriateness
KW - CT coronary angiography
KW - Cardiac CT
KW - Coronary artery disease
KW - Imaging
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858605429&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858605429&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcct.2011.12.005
DO - 10.1016/j.jcct.2011.12.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 22440425
AN - SCOPUS:84858605429
SN - 1934-5925
VL - 6
SP - 99
EP - 107
JO - Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
JF - Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
IS - 2
ER -