Comparison of cardiac computed tomography examination appropriateness under the 2010 revised versus the 2006 original Appropriate Use Criteria

Meagan M. Wasfy, Thomas J. Brady, Suhny Abbara, Khurram Nasir, Udo Hoffmann, Ricardo C. Cury, Marcelo F. Di Carli, Ron Blankstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)99-107
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
Volume6
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2012

Fingerprint

Personal Health Records
Tertiary Healthcare
Tertiary Care Centers
Area Under Curve
Tomography
Interviews
Physicians

Keywords

  • Appropriateness
  • Cardiac CT
  • Coronary artery disease
  • CT coronary angiography
  • Imaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

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.

In: Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Vol. 6, No. 2, 03.2012, p. 99-107.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wasfy, Meagan M. ; Brady, Thomas J. ; Abbara, Suhny ; Nasir, Khurram ; Hoffmann, Udo ; Cury, Ricardo C. ; Di Carli, Marcelo F. ; Blankstein, Ron. / Comparison of cardiac computed tomography examination appropriateness under the 2010 revised versus the 2006 original Appropriate Use Criteria. In: Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. 2012 ; Vol. 6, No. 2. pp. 99-107.
@article{aa89d70b96c84c1dbef5a605501d9ec6,
title = "Comparison of cardiac computed tomography examination appropriateness under the 2010 revised versus the 2006 original Appropriate Use Criteria",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Appropriateness, Cardiac CT, Coronary artery disease, CT coronary angiography, Imaging",
author = "Wasfy, {Meagan M.} and Brady, {Thomas J.} and Suhny Abbara and Khurram Nasir and Udo Hoffmann and Cury, {Ricardo C.} and {Di Carli}, {Marcelo F.} and Ron Blankstein",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcct.2011.12.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "99--107",
journal = "Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography",
issn = "1934-5925",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

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

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 - Cardiac CT

KW - Coronary artery disease

KW - CT coronary angiography

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

VL - 6

SP - 99

EP - 107

JO - Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

JF - Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

SN - 1934-5925

IS - 2

ER -