Comparison of the Applicability of the 2006 and the 2010 Cardiac CT Angiography Appropriate Use Criteria

被引:4
|
作者
Cullen, Ethany L. [1 ]
Aggarwal, Shivani R. [1 ]
Goss, Brian C. [1 ]
Hodge, David O. [2 ]
Gibbons, Raymond J. [3 ]
Araoz, Philip A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Dept Radiol, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Dept Biomed Stat & Informat, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Div Cardiovasc Dis, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
关键词
Cardiac CT; CT angiography; appropriateness criteria; CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; AMERICAN-HEART-ASSOCIATION; TASK-FORCE; NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; COLLEGE; RADIOLOGY; AGREEMENT; SOCIETY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jacr.2012.07.014
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: In a previous study, the 2006 appropriateness criteria (AC) for cardiac CT were applied to 251 patients. It was found that 46% of patients could not be classified, and two observers showed only fair agreement (K = 0.31) on the assigned appropriateness rating (appropriate, inappropriate, uncertain, or not classifiable). The conclusion was that the 2006 AC were difficult to apply. The AC were revised in 2010. The aim of this study was to determine if the rate of patients not classifiable and interobserver variability had decreased to the point at which the AC could be reasonably applied. Methods: Medical records of the 251 patients who were classified using the 2006 AC were reviewed by two observers, who attempted to assign the patients' indications using the 2010 AC. Patients for whom no indications could be found were deemed not classifiable. A third observer settled disagreements. The numbers of patients not classifiable using the 2006 and 2010 criteria and the number of patients on whom the two reviewers disagreed on indications were compared using McNemar's test. Results: One hundred fifteen patients (46%) were not classifiable using the 2006 AC. With the 2010 AC, the number of patients not classifiable decreased to 39 (16%) (P < .001). With the 2006 criteria, the observers disagreed on specific indications for 152 patients (61%). With the 2010 criteria, the observers disagreed for 118 patients (47%) (P = .002). Conclusions: Using the 2010 AC, the number of patients not classifiable and the number of disagreements decreased. Although the rate of patients not classifiable has decreased to an acceptable level, the interobserver variability remains concerning.
引用
收藏
页码:258 / 267
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of the 2006 and 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for CT Coronary Angiography in an Academic Medical Center
    Cullen, Ethany
    Aggarwal, Shivani
    Goss, Brian
    Araoz, Philip
    Gibbons, Raymond
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2011, 124 (21)
  • [2] PROSPECTIVE EVALUATION OF THE UPDATED 2010 ACCF CARDIAC CT APPROPRIATE USE CRITERIA
    Weigold, William Guy
    Rich, Michael
    Utsunomiya, Daisuke
    Simprini, Lauren
    Weissman, Gaby
    Taylor, Allen
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2012, 59 (13) : E1372 - E1372
  • [3] Prospective evaluation of the updated 2010 ACCF Cardiac CT Appropriate Use Criteria
    Rich, Michael E.
    Utsunomiya, Daisuke
    Simprini, Lauren A.
    Weigold, Wm Guy
    Weissman, Gaby
    Taylor, Allen J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2012, 6 (02) : 108 - 112
  • [4] Appropriate criteria for the use of cardiac computed tomography angiography
    Martin, Maria
    Barreiro, Manuel
    Concepcion Fernandez Cimadevilla, O.
    Corros, Cecilia
    Garcia-Campos, Ana
    Luisa Rodriguez, Maria
    de la Hera, Jesus
    Luyando, Luis H.
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2013, 14 (02) : 193 - 193
  • [5] Comparison of cardiac computed tomography examination appropriateness under the 2010 revised versus the 2006 original Appropriate Use Criteria
    Wasfy, Meagan M.
    Brady, Thomas J.
    Abbara, Suhny
    Nasir, Khurram
    Hoffmann, Udo
    Cury, Ricardo C.
    Di Carli, Marcelo F.
    Blankstein, Ron
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2012, 6 (02) : 99 - 107
  • [6] Comparison of the 2006 and 2010 Cardiac CT Appropriateness Criteria in a Real-World Setting
    Mazimba, Sula
    Grant, Nakash
    Parikh, Analkumar
    Patel, Trupti
    Dahale, Bhakti
    Franco, Zurisadai
    Dittoe, Nathaniel
    Shah, Tushar
    Hahn, Harvey S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2012, 9 (09) : 630 - 634
  • [7] Improvement and Problems in Appropriate Use of Cardiac CT: 2003, 2007 and 2011 Use of CT Based on ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMI 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac CT
    Ozawa, Koya
    Funabashi, Nobusada
    Takaoka, Hiroyuki
    Uehara, Masae
    Kobayashi, Yoshio
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2012, 126 (21)
  • [8] Improvement and problems in appropriate use of cardiac CT: 2003, 2007 and 2011 use of CT-based on ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac CT
    Ozawa, Koya
    Funabashi, Nobusada
    Takaoka, Hiroyuki
    Kobayashi, Yoshio
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2014, 174 (02) : 385 - 388
  • [9] Applicability of the Appropriate use Criteria for Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy
    de Oliveira, Anderson
    Rezende, Maria Fernanda
    Correa, Renato
    Mousinho, Rodrigo
    Azevedo, Jader Cunha
    Miranda, Sandra Marina
    Oliveira, Aline Ribeiro
    Gutterres, Ricardo Fraga
    Mesquita, Evandro Tinoco
    Mesquita, Claudio Tinoco
    [J]. ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE CARDIOLOGIA, 2014, 103 (05) : 375 - 381
  • [10] CT angiography, underuse, overuse, or appropriate use?
    van der Wall, E. E.
    [J]. NETHERLANDS HEART JOURNAL, 2009, 17 (06): : 223 - 223