Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
Volume 3, Issue 4 , Pages 224-232, July 2009

International, multidisciplinary update of the 2006 Appropriateness Criteria for cardiac computed tomography

  • Salvatore Carbonaro, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • Cardiology Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6900 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20307, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
  • ,
  • Todd C. Villines, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiology Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6900 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20307, USA
  • ,
  • Jörg Hausleiter, MD

      Affiliations

    • Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Munich, Germany
  • ,
  • Patrick J. Devine, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiology Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6900 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20307, USA
  • ,
  • Thomas C. Gerber, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
  • ,
  • Allen J. Taylor, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiology Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6900 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20307, USA

Received 17 March 2009; accepted 20 May 2009. published online 28 May 2009.

Background

A multi-society document outlining appropriateness criteria for cardiac CT (CCT) was published in 2006. Since then, CCT has experienced rapid growth in technologic advances and clinical use. We sought to reassess opinion about the appropriate use of CCT among an international group of experts in the field.

Methods

Seventy-two international experts in the field of CCT independently rated all 39 indications listed in the original 2006 appropriateness statement. Indications were classified as either “appropriate,” “uncertain,” or “inappropriate” based on an assessment of the clinical balance between risk and benefit to the patient in daily practice. Median rater scores were considered to represent current opinion for each indication and were compared with the original value in the 2006 document.

Results

Survey respondents averaged 5.8±4.1 years of CCT experience, with a median total of 1200 contrast-enhanced CCT examinations performed and interpreted. Cardiologists (40; 55.6%) and radiologists (32; 44.4%) were included. Five of 12 previously “uncertain” indications shifted to “appropriate,” resulting in a total of 18 “appropriate” of 39 possible indications. Conversely, all previously “appropriate” indications remained so. Among the 14 previously “inappropriate” indications, 10 shifted to “uncertain,” none to “appropriate.” Overall, 26 of 39 indications showed increased appropriateness scores (range of shift, 1–4 points; median value, 1; interquartile range, 0–2). No significant differences were observed between US and non-US expert respondents or between cardiology and radiology respondents in the overall appropriateness category ratings.

Conclusions

When compared with the 2006 Appropriateness Criteria, opinion regarding clinical use of CCT has experienced a significant shift toward appropriateness across most indications, similarly judged among international cardiology and radiology experts in the field.

Keywords: Appropriateness criteria, Cardiac computed tomography, Cardiac CT angiography

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

 The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US government.

PII: S1934-5925(09)00163-4

doi:10.1016/j.jcct.2009.05.010

Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
Volume 3, Issue 4 , Pages 224-232, July 2009