Search

This document is the second of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The first document (J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1647-1672) addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas this document addresses this topic with regard to structural (nonvalvular) heart disease. While dealing with different subjects, the 2 documents do share a common structure and feature some clinical overlap. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of structural and valvular heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities. Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the 102 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations in which diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined.

This document is the second of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The first document

This document is 1 of 2 companion appropriate use criteria (AUC) documents developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. This document addresses the evaluation and use of multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease, whereas the second, companion document addresses this topic with regard to structural heart disease. Although there is clinical overlap, the documents addressing valvular and structural heart disease are published separately, albeit with a common structure. The goal of the companion AUC documents is to provide a comprehensive resource for multimodality imaging in the context of valvular and structural heart disease, encompassing multiple imaging modalities. Using standardized methodology, the clinical scenarios (indications) were developed by a diverse writing group to represent patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included common applications and anticipated uses. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the 92 clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of these scenarios by practices that will improve and standardize physician decision making. AUC publications reflect an ongoing effort by the American College of Cardiology to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations where diagnostic tests and procedures are utilized by physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular diseases. The process is based on the current understanding of the technical capabilities of the imaging modalities examined.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of evaluation for appropriate use of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in multiple clinical sites and to determine use patterns as well as identify areas of apparent inappropriate use.BackgroundAlthough cardiac imaging is highly valued for decision-making, the growth and expense related to these procedures has raised questions regarding overuse. The publication of appropriate use criteria (AUC), including those for MPI, were designed to provide guidance in the rational use of testing. However, limited data regarding the implementation and evaluation of AUC are available.MethodsSix diverse clinical sites enrolled consecutive patients undergoing MPI, collecting point-of-service data entered into an online form. An automated algorithm assigned a specific indication from the AUC that was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. Site-specific feedback was later provided to each practice on ordering patterns.ResultsOf the 6,351 patients enrolled, 93% were successfully assigned an appropriateness level. Inappropriate use of MPI was found in 14.4% of patients, with a range of 4% to 22% among practices. Women and younger patients were more likely to undergo inappropriate MPI. Asymptomatic, low-risk patients accounted for 44.5% of inappropriate testing. Elimination of the 5 most common inappropriate use indications would reduce overall imaging volume by 13.2%. Inappropriate use by physicians from within the practice performing imaging was not greater than physicians outside of the practice. Educational feedback might have resulted in reduced inappropriate test ordering in 1 site.ConclusionsThe tracking of appropriate use is feasible in clinical practice, with an automated system that can readily identify practice patterns and targets for educational and quality improvement initiatives. This approach might provide an alternative to utilization management.

Advances in the therapeutic options for cardiovascular disease, coupled with improvements in imaging technology, have led to an explosive growth in the performance of cardiovascular imaging. Yet this growth is challenging to interpret as it may represent appropriate use, underuse (i.e., the failure

The American College of Cardiology Foundation along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical presentations for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) to consider use of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures. This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging (RNI), stress echocardiography (Echo), calcium scoring, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and invasive coronary angiography for SIHD. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine the AUC on a frequent basis. A major innovation in this document is the rating of tests side by side for the same indication. The side-by-side rating removes any concerns about differences in indication or interpretation stemming from prior use of separate documents for each test. However, the ratings were explicitly not competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and range of capabilities available in any given local setting. The indications for this review are limited to the detection and risk assessment of SIHD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Eighty clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate rating panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate use following a modified Delphi process following the recently updated AUC development methodology. The use of some modalities of testing in the initial evaluation of patients with symptoms representing ischemic equivalents, newly diagnosed heart failure, arrhythmias, and syncope was generally found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate, except in cases where low pre-test probability or low risk limited the benefit of most testing except exercise electrocardiogram (ECG). Testing for the evaluation of new or worsening symptoms following a prior test or procedure was found to be Appropriate. In addition, testing was found to be Appropriate or May Be Appropriate for patients within 90 days of an abnormal or uncertain prior result. Pre-operative testing was rated Appropriate or May Be Appropriate only for patients who had poor functional capacity and were undergoing vascular or intermediate risk surgery with 1 or more clinical risk factors or an organ transplant. The exercise ECG was suggested as an Appropriate test for cardiac rehabilitation clearance or for exercise prescription purposes. Testing in asymptomatic patients was generally found to be Rarely Appropriate, except for calcium scoring and exercise testing in intermediate and high-risk individuals and either stress or anatomic imaging in higher-risk individuals, which were all rated as May Be Appropriate. All modalities of follow-up testing after a prior test or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 2 years and within 5 years after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in the absence of new symptoms were rated Rarely Appropriate. Pre-operative testing for patients with good functional capacity, prior normal testing within 1 year, or prior to low-risk surgery also were found to be Rarely Appropriate. Imaging for an exercise prescription or prior to the initiation of cardiac rehabilitation was Rarely Appropriate except for cardiac rehabilitation clearance for heart failure patients.

Coronary artery calcification is part of the development of atherosclerosis; it occurs exclusively in atherosclerotic arteries and is absent in the normal vessel wall. Electron-beam computed tomography (EBCT), the focus of this document, is a highly sensitive technique for detecting coronary artery calcium and is being used with increasing frequency for the screening of asymptomatic people to assess those at high risk for developing coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiac events, as well as for the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in symptomatic patients. The use of EBCT has the greatest potential for further determination of risk, particularly in elderly asymptomatic patients and others at intermediate risk. The calcium score has been advocated by some as a potential surrogate for age in risk-assessment models. EBCT has also been proposed as a useful technique for assessing the progression or regression of coronary artery stenosis in response to treatment of risk factors such as hypercholesterolemia. EBCT uses an electron beam in stationary tungsten targets, which permits very rapid scanning times. Serial transaxial images are obtained in 100 ms with a thickness of 3 to 6 mm for purposes of detecting coronary artery calcium. Thirty to 40 adjacent axial scans are obtained during 1 to 2 breath-holding sequences. Current EBCT software permits quantification of calcium area and density. Histological studies support the association of tissue densities of 130 Hounsfield units (HU) with calcified plaque. However, a plaque vulnerable to fissure or erosion can be present in the absence of calcium. Also, sex differences play a role in the development of coronary calcium, the prevalence of calcium in women being half that of men until age 60 years. EBCT calcium scores have correlated with pathological examination of the atherosclerotic plaque. This American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Writing Group reviewed …

The American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) have jointly developed a method to define appropriate utilization of cardiovascular imaging. The primary role of this method is to create a series of documents to define the utility of cardiovascular imaging procedures in relation to specific clinical questions, with the aim of defining what, if any, imaging tests are indicated to help to determine diagnosis, treatment, or outcome. The methodology accomplishes this aim through the application of systematic evidence reviews integrated with expert opinion by means of a rigorous Delphi process. By obtaining broad input during the development process from radiologists, cardiologists, primary care physicians, and other stakeholders, these documents are intended to provide practical evidence-based guidance to ordering providers, imaging laboratories, interpreting physicians, patients, and policymakers as to optimal cardiovascular imaging utilization. This document details the history, rationale, and methodology for developing these joint documents for appropriate utilization of cardiovascular imaging.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) have jointly developed a method to define appropriate utilization of cardiovascular imaging. The primary role of this method is to create a series of documents to define the utility of cardiovascular imaging procedures in relation to specific clinical questions, with the aim of defining what, if any, imaging tests are indicated to help to determine diagnosis, treatment, or outcome. The methodology accomplishes this aim through the application of systematic evidence reviews integrated with expert opinion by means of a rigorous Delphi process. By obtaining broad input during the development process from radiologists, cardiologists, primary care physicians, and other stakeholders, these documents are intended to provide practical evidence-based guidance to ordering providers, imaging laboratories, interpreting physicians, patients, and policymakers as to optimal cardiovascular imaging utilization. This document details the history, rationale, and methodology for developing these joint documents for appropriate utilization of cardiovascular imaging.

Objectives This study was undertaken to determine the extent to which cardiovascular specialists are involved with and affected by managed care and to ascertain their attitudes toward it. This survey also served as the follow-up to an initial study on the subject performed by the American College of Cardiology in 1993. Background The initial 1993 study was performed to address the lack of any comprehensive examination of the impact of managed care on cardiovascular specialists. In 1995, to reexplore this question and follow up the 1993 findings, the College conducted a survey of its membership in the following areas: 1) physician relationship with managed care plans; 2) number of managed care contracts; 3) breakdown of revenue by payment source; 4) changes in practice in response to managed care; and 5) physician attitudes toward managed care. To the extent feasible, the 1995 questionnaire paralleled the 1993 instrument to facilitate comparisons. Methods A questionnaire was mailed to 5,147 practicing College members in the United States, who were categorized by specialty as pediatric cardiologists, adult cardiologists or cardiovascular surgeons. Mailings were sent to 1) all pediatric cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons; 2) randomly selected adult cardiologists practicing in 10 states with high managed care penetration; and 3) randomly selected adult cardiologists in the nine U.S. census areas who were not practicing in the 10 states with high managed care penetration. Results Usable surveys were returned by 1,236 respondents, for an overall response rate of 24%. Involvement with at least one type of managed care organization was reported by 89% of respondents, up from 76% in 1993. Although managed care relationships had increased across physician age, region, practice and specialty, respondents indicated that, on average, well below 50% of their practice revenues stem from managed care contracts. To adapt to the managed care environment, strategic practice changes, such as joining a cardiovascular network, implementing continuous quality improvement systems and adopting clinical pathways, were being instituted by most respondent practices of nine or more physicians. Smaller groups were less active. Most respondents involved with managed care disliked its effects, particularly in clinical matters. Their attitudes toward the assumption of risk, managed fee-for-service arrangements and a private versus single-payer system show that there is no uniformity of opinion regarding the best means to contain costs and promote efficiency. Conclusions Managed care has become an established part of cardiovascular specialist practice in the United States. Although this trend is viewed with some disfavor, most respondents are making practice changes to adapt to this new environment.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), in partnership with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where noninvasive vascular testing (ultrasound and physiological testing) is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of the original appropriate use criteria (AUC). The 159 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3).

The American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) were developed to guide use of myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (MPS), stress echocardiography, and cardiac computed tomographic angiography (CCTA). To date, cardiologist application of AUC from a patient-based multiprocedure perspective has not been evaluated. A Web-based survey of 15 clinical vignettes spanning a wide spectrum of indications for MPS, STE, and CCTA in coronary artery disease was administered to cardiologists who rated the ordered test as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain by AUC application and suggested a preferred alternative imaging procedure, if any. In total 129 cardiologists responded to the survey (mean age 49.5 years, board certification for MPS 65%, echocardiography 39%, CCTA 32%). Cardiologists agreed with published AUC ratings 65% of the time, with differences in all categories (appropriate, 50% vs 53%; inappropriate, 42% vs 20%; uncertain, 9% vs 27%, p

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical scenarios where cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is frequently considered. The present document is an update to the original CCT/cardiac magnetic resonance appropriateness criteria published in 2006, written to reflect changes in test utilization, to incorporate new clinical data, and to clarify CCT use where omissions or lack of clarity existed in the original criteria.1 The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Ninety-three clinical scenarios were developed by a writing group and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9 to designate appropriate use, inappropriate use, or uncertain use. In general, use of CCT angiography for diagnosis and risk assessment in patients with low or intermediate risk or pretest probability for coronary artery disease was viewed favorably, whereas testing in high-risk patients, routine repeat testing, and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. Use of noncontrast computed tomography for calcium scoring was rated as appropriate within intermediate- and selected low-risk patients. Appropriate applications of CCT are also within the category of cardiac structural and functional evaluation. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making, performance, and reimbursement policy, and that they will help guide future research. In an effort to respond to the need for the rational use of imaging services in the delivery of high-quality care, the ACCF has undertaken a process to determine the appropriate use of cardiovascular imaging for selected patient indications. Appropriate use criteria publications reflect an ongoing effort by the ACCF to critically and systematically create, review, and categorize clinical situations where diagnostic tests and procedures …

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical scenarios where cardiac radionuclide imaging (RNI) is frequently considered. This document is a revision of the original Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (SPECT MPI) Appropriateness Criteria, published 4 years earlier, written to reflect changes in test utilization and new clinical data, and to clarify RNI use where omissions or lack of clarity existed in the original criteria. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine appropriate use criteria (AUC) on a frequent basis. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Sixty-seven clinical scenarios were developed by a writing group and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9 to designate appropriate use, inappropriate use, or uncertain use. In general, use of cardiac RNI for diagnosis and risk assessment in intermediate- and high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while testing in low-risk patients, routine repeat testing, and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. Additionally, use for perioperative testing was found to be inappropriate except for high selected groups of patients. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making, test performance, and reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Background— An American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Task Force periodically revises and publishes guidelines with evidence-based recommendations for appropriate use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Some studies have suggested that closer adherence to guidelines can reduce variations in care, can improve quality, and may ultimately result in better outcomes, but this finding is incompletely understood. Guidelines themselves must change to be responsive to continuously evolving clinical practice. Our goal here was to investigate whether any relationship existed between the most recent ACC/AHA recommended indications for PCI and short term in-hospital outcomes. Methods and Results— We analyzed the ACC National Cardiovascular Data Registry for the period of January 1, 2001, through March 31, 2004. We excluded PCI procedures performed for acute myocardial infarction (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction); all others were grouped by their indications according to the standard ACC/AHA scheme: Class I, evidence and/or agreement that PCI is useful and effective; Class IIa, conflicting evidence and/or divergent opinions, weight is in favor; Class IIb, usefulness/efficacy is less well established; and Class III, evidence and/or agreement that PCI is not useful or effective and may be harmful. Clinical success was defined as angiographic success (P Conclusions— In this large survey of contemporary PCI practice, most procedures were performed for Class I indications. A significant relationship between evidence-based indications recommended by the ACC/AHA Task Force and in-hospital outcomes was noted.

Heart House is on the move. After more than three years of study, site visits, surveys, and negotiations, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) will have a new home in the first quarter of 2006 at 2400 N Street NW in Washington, DC. This is a momentous decision involving more than 250

[Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1] ![Figure][1

are being attacked for being less than forthcoming(1). There is an endless stream of allegations from the mediathat research organizations and health care professionals areintentionally “hiding” influential connections or negative re-sults, culminating in destruction of the public trust and apervasive perception of physician self-interest (2).Even prominent medical professionals are pointing fin-gers, claiming in editorials that the use of “heavily conflictedexperts” by medical organizations to make clinical policy“erodes the confidence of the public” (3). Although suchaccusations are most often not grounded in fact but insupposition, the American College of Cardiology (ACC)still must take such attitudes seriously. We must uphold thesanctity of the health care professionals’ role, which requiresthe public’s trust in order to be effective in our work.The trust-based doctor-patient relationship is sacrosanctin our society. Not only is it the hallmark of good medicinebut it is also legally protected. Patients must intentionallywaive their inalienable doctor-patient privacy rights underthe Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act(HIPAA) so as to empower their physicians to breach thistrust. Today’s rapidly evolving medical environment, how-ever, can create illusory Hobson’s choices where the inter-ests of the physician and the patient can appear to becontradictory. In fact, there is little room for choice. Ethicaldecisions keeping the patient primary must be made in allinstances, and the physician must be prepared to understandand manage the repercussions of those actions.Clinician-scientists and the medical industry continuallydevelop new methods to support patients living with cardio-vascular disease. Society has benefited from this methodicaleffort, with remarkable strides being made in pharmaceuticaland medical device solutions. We also have witnessed—anddriven—a change in culture that encourages heart-healthyhabits, such as reduced smoking and weight consciousness.Patient-care protocols have improved worldwide throughglobal cooperation, and lives are being saved.As we know all too well, however, more—and better—treatment options can lead to thorny ethical issues. Access tocutting-edge care for certain populations can create perceivedinequities in treatment. Patient-participants in research pose apeculiar dilemma for doctor-investigators seeking to treatdisease yet advance knowledge. Researchers may engage inrelationships with industry that they consider perfectly harm-less but that can appear to present inescapable COI. Any ofthese circumstances can result in perceived harm to our primaryconcern, the patient. Harm, in this sense, may manifest as aphysical detriment, or it may be a deterioration—or destruc-tion—of the patient’s faith. Such a situation automaticallybreaches the hallowed physician-patient trust relationship thatis fundamental to an effective health care environment.Perception, however, should not be automatically inferred asreality. In our ACC members’ daily practices, protectingpatients’ rights and trust is de rigueur. Cardiovascular special-ists are renowned, with very few exceptions, for keeping theirpatients’ best interests at heart when creating care protocols orrecommending life-management strategies. Rather than as-suming the worst about physicians when it comes to potentialCOI, we submit it is far more accurate to assume the best.High-profile cases in the media, however, have negativelytrained the spotlight on ethics and the issue of COI. TheNIH, through its subsidiary National Heart, Lung, andBlood Institute, released the National Cholesterol Educa-tion Program Update in July of this year, and unintention-ally created a furor by failing to publish author disclosure ofties to affected industry (4). This contretemps came on theheels of an ongoing media frenzy that erupted in the springover GlaxoSmithKline’s management of its Paxil antide-pressant studies related to children and adolescents (5).This exceptionally sensitive COI climate reinforces theACC’s position that there is no room for conjecture here. Wemust adopt bright-line ethical guides that remain flexible

[Figure][1] Ap·pro·pri·ate adj : suitable for the occasion or circumstances; doing the right thing ([1][2]) During the past two decades, technologic advances in the evaluation and treatment of cardiovascular disease have resulted in dramatic improvement in the quality and duration of

[Figure][1] We are navigating an extraordinary sea of change. On the one hand, we face incessant waves of progress, where medical knowledge is doubling every five years. On the other hand, we are struggling to gain solid footing against perennial specialty turf battles, dwindling health care

Under the auspices of the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC), an appropriateness review was conducted for radionuclide cardiovascular imaging (RNI), specifically gated single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI). The review assessed the risks and benefits of the imaging test for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them based on a scale of 1 to 9, where the upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The mid range (4 to 6) implies that the test may be generally acceptable and may be a reasonable approach for the indication. The indications for this review were primarily drawn from existing clinical practice guidelines and modified based on discussion by the ACCF Appropriateness Criteria Working Group and the Technical Panel members who rated the indications. The method for this review was based on the RAND/UCLA approach for evaluating appropriateness, which blends scientific evidence and practice experience. A modified Delphi technique was used to obtain first- and second-round ratings of 52 clinical indications. The ratings were done by a Technical Panel with diverse membership, including nuclear cardiologists, referring physicians (including an echocardiographer), health services researchers, and a payer (chief medical officer). These results are expected to have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and future research directions. Periodic assessment and updating of criteria will be undertaken as needed.

“Professionalism is the basis of medicine's contract with society. It demands placing the interests of patients above those of the physician, setting and maintaining standards of competence and integrity, and providing expert advice to society on matters of health.... Essential to this contract is public trust in physicians, which depends on the integrity of both individual physicians and the whole profession” (1). Cardiovascular specialists support the fundamental principles of primacy of patient welfare, patient autonomy, and the promotion of social justice. For the purposes of this document, “self-referral” occurs when a physician recommends a patient intervention from which the physician may benefit personally. Such recommendations usually facilitate the provision of efficient, effective, and high-quality care, but may also afford the potential for abuse. As former JACC Editor-in-Chief William Parmley stated so clearly: “At issue is the question of intent; if the intent is to provide excellent medical care, the practice is laudable. If the intent is to subjugate medical decision-making, then the practice is unethical” (2). Those few physicians who are publicized for violating our trust do not reflect the rank and file of cardiovascular specialists. The cardiovascular specialist's primary duty is to the patient. His or her role is to promote patient welfare in an increasingly complex health care environment, one that has been made even more complex by the anti-kickback statutes and Stark laws (see the following sections). Having entered into a physician-patient relationship, physicians must counsel their patients regardless of individual financial or medical care delivery system considerations or other factors, such as socio-economic status, race, gender, or sexual orientation (3). The physician's clinical judgment must not be influenced by financial incentives from a fee-for-service system or disincentives from a capitated care system. Recommendations should be made based only on medical merit (4,5). Physicians must …

The seventh case of isolated tricuspid valvular stenosis is reported. Despite the rarity of this lesion, a number of distinguishing clinical features warrant emphasis. The patient is generally a woman who has had a known heart murmur since childhood and who complains of fatigue, dyspnea and edema. Helpful physical signs include a prominent jugular venous a wave, left parasternal presystolic rumble with little if any mid-diastolic component, and generally no opening snap. Both the a wave and the rumble are accentuated during inspiration. Signs of pulmonary vascular congestion are absent, and both the electrocardiogram and the chest roentgenogram reveal only right atrial enlargement. Cardiac catheterization demonstrates a tricuspid diastolic mean gradient of 4 to 8 mm Hg and a valve area ranging from 0.8 to 1.5 cm 2 . The clinical course is variable. In some cases tricuspid valvulotomy or valvuloplasty has resulted in considerable improvement.

Congestive heart failure (CHF) occurs in about one half of all patients with acute myocardial infarction and is a manifestation of acute alterations in left ventricular function. In the present study CHF is defined on clinical grounds, according to the presence and extent of bilateral pulmonary rales. An accompanying S 3 ventricular gallop was heard in 58% of our patients with heart failure initially, but it disappeared eventually in the majority. Dilatation of pulmonary veins and blurring of pulmonary vascular markings are useful roentgenographic signs which reflect elevations in left heart filling pressure. At times the earliest indicators of heart failure, these findings appear in general to be less sensitive than the physical examination in diagnosing CHF. Although stroke volume is decreased with CHF, cardiac index is generally maintained by increased heart rate. Left ventricular minute work and stroke work are significantly decreased, while left ventricular end-diastolic pressure is significantly increased, in patients with CHF complicating acute myocardial infarction. Arterial hypoxemia is common and the degree of arteriovenous shunting is roughly proportional to the elevation of left ventricular filling pressure. The mortality of patients with CHF is approximately three times that of patients with acute myocardial infarction and no complications. Diuretic therapy is safe and effective. Attention is called to the probability that the use of digitalis preparations in the early hours following myocardial infarction is hazardous. Furthermore, hemodynamic benefit from digitalization in the early postinfarction period remains unproven.

During our careers, we have witnessed an explosion of scientific and clinical knowledge aided by new technologies and a growing network of supportive, specialized health care professionals. More investment in treatment and prevention research is fueling medical innovation. The average life span is