Search

Nonischemic cardiomyopathies encompass a broad spectrum of myocardial disorders with mechanical or electrical dysfunction without evidence of ischemia. There are five broad variants of nonischemic cardiomyopathies; hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (Variant 1), restrictive or infiltrative cardiomyopathy (Variant 2), dilated or unclassified cardiomyopathy (Variant 3), arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (Variant 4), and inflammatory cardiomyopathy (Variant 5). For variants 1, 3, and 4, resting transthoracic echocardiography, MRI heart function and morphology without and with contrast, and MRI heart function and morphology without contrast are the usually appropriate imaging modalities. For variants 2 and 5, resting transthoracic echocardiography and MRI heart function and morphology without and with contrast are the usually appropriate imaging modalities. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits and inpatient evaluation, with particular concern for acute coronary syndrome as an etiology, since cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Although history-based, electrocardiographic, and laboratory evaluations have shown promise in identifying coronary artery disease, early accurate diagnosis is paramount and there is an important role for imaging examinations to determine the presence and extent of anatomic coronary abnormality and ischemic physiology, to guide management with regard to optimal medical therapy or revascularization, and ultimately to thereby improve patient outcomes. A summary of the various methods for initial imaging evaluation of suspected acute coronary syndrome is outlined in this document. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Chronic chest pain (CCP) of a cardiac etiology is a common clinical problem. The diagnosis and classification of the case of chest pain has rapidly evolved providing the clinician with multiple cardiac imaging strategies. Though scintigraphy and rest echocardiography remain as appropriate imaging tools in the diagnostic evaluation, new technology is available. Current evidence supports the use of alternative imaging tests such as coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), cardiac MRI (CMRI), or Rb-82 PET/CT. Since multiple imaging modalities are available to the clinician, the most appropriate noninvasive imaging strategy will be based upon the patient's clinical presentation and clinical status. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

While there is no single diagnostic test for heart failure (HF), imaging plays a supportive role beginning with confirmation of HF, especially by detecting ventricular dysfunction ( Variant 1 ). Ejection fraction (EF) is important in HF classification, and imaging plays a subsequent role in differentiation between HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) versus preserved EF (HFpEF) ( Variant 2 ). Once HFrEF is identified, distinction between ischemic and nonischemic etiologies with imaging support ( Variant 3 ) facilitates further planning. Imaging approaches which are usually appropriate include: both resting transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and chest radiography for Variant 1 ; resting TTE and/or MRI (including functional, without absolute need for contrast) for Variant 2 ; and for Variant 3 , a. Coronary CTA or coronary arteriography (if high pretest probability/symptoms for ischemic disease) for coronary assessment; b. Rest/vasodilator stress SPECT/CT, PET/CT, or MRI for myocardial perfusion assessment; c. Rest/exercise or inotropic stress TTE for myocardial contraction assessment; or d. MRI (including morphologic with contrast) for myocardial characterization. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.