Search

Imaging is valuable in determining the presence, extent, and severity of myocardial ischemia and the severity of obstructive coronary lesions in patients with chronic chest pain in the setting of high probability of coronary artery disease. Imaging is critical for defining patients best suited for medical therapy or intervention, and findings can be used to predict long-term prognosis and the likely benefit from various therapeutic options. Chest radiography, radionuclide single photon-emission CT, radionuclide ventriculography, and conventional coronary angiography are the imaging modalities historically used in evaluating suspected chronic myocardial ischemia. Stress echocardiography, PET, cardiac MRI, and multidetector cardiac CT have all been more recently shown to be valuable in the evaluation of ischemic heart disease. Other imaging techniques may be helpful in those patients who do not present with signs classic for angina pectoris or in those patients who do not respond as expected to standard management. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria((R)) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Regadenoson, a selective A2A adenosine receptor agonist, was evaluated for tolerability and effectiveness as a pharmacological stress agent for detecting reversible myocardial hypoperfusion when combined with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Background: Adenosine and dipyridamole are nonselective adenosine agonists currently used as pharmacologic stressors. Despite proven safety, these agents often cause undesirable side effects and require a continuous infusion. Methods: This Phase II, multicenter, open-label trial was conducted in 36 patients who had demonstrated ischemia on a 6-min adenosine SPECT imaging study within the previous 2 to 46 days. Patients received regadenoson as a rapid intravenous bolus dose of 400 microg (n = 18) or 500 microg (n = 18). The radiopharmaceutical was then delivered within one minute. The SPECT images were acquired in a standard manner and uniformly processed at a central laboratory. Regadenoson and adenosine studies were presented in random order and interpreted blindly with a 17-segment model by three observers. Additionally, quantitative analysis was performed with 4D-MSPECT software (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan). Results: Overall agreement for the presence of reversible hypoperfusion was 86%. The 400-mug dose was better tolerated. Overall, regadenoson was well-tolerated; side effects (e.g., chest discomfort, flushing, dyspnea) were generally mild in severity and self-limiting. High-grade atrioventricular block and bronchospasm were not observed. Conclusions: Regadenoson is well-tolerated and seems as effective as adenosine for detecting and quantifying the extent of hypoperfusion observed with SPECT perfusion imaging. Phase III clinical trials are now underway, given the promise of regadenoson's reduced side effects and simplicity of bolus administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arbutamine, a synthetic catecholamine, coupled with a closed-loop, computerized delivery system was evaluated in conjunction with technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy and echocardiography for the detection of coronary artery disease. Concordance between the imaging methods was 68%, with a similar sensitivity for coronary disease using echocardiography (78%) and technetium-99m sestamibi (76%), although more arbutamine-induced ischemia was noted with perfusion imaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To characterize the recovery of diagnostic cardiovascular procedure volumes in U.S. and non-U.S. facilities in the year following the initial COVID-19 outbreak., Materials and Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) coordinated a worldwide study called the IAEA Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19 2 (INCAPS COVID 2), collecting data from 669 facilities in 107 countries, including 93 facilities in 34 U.S. states, to determine the impact of the pandemic on diagnostic cardiovascular procedure volumes. Participants reported volumes for each diagnostic imaging modality used at their facility for March 2019 (baseline), April 2020, and April 2021. This secondary analysis of INCAPS COVID 2 evaluated differences in changes in procedure volume between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and among U.S. regions. Factors associated with return to prepandemic volumes in the United States were also analyzed in a multivariable regression analysis., Results: Reduction in procedure volumes in April 2020 compared with baseline was similar for U.S. and non-U.S. facilities (-66% vs -71%, P = .27). U.S. facilities reported greater return to baseline in April 2021 than did all non-U.S. facilities (4% vs -6%, P = .008), but there was no evidence of a difference when comparing U.S. facilities with non-U.S. high-income country (NUHIC) facilities (4% vs 0%, P = .18). U.S. regional differences in return to baseline were observed between the Midwest (11%), Northeast (9%), South (1%), and West (-7%, P = .03), but no studied factors were significant predictors of 2021 change from prepandemic baseline., Conclusion: The reductions in cardiac testing during the early pandemic have recovered within a year to prepandemic baselines in the United States and NUHICs, while procedure volumes remain depressed in lower-income countries. Keywords: SPECT, Cardiac, Epidemiology, Angiography, CT Angiography, CT, Echocardiography, SPECT/CT, MR Imaging, Radionuclide Studies, COVID-19, Cardiovascular Imaging, Diagnostic Cardiovascular Procedure, Cardiovascular Disease, Cardiac Testing Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2023., Competing Interests: Disclosures of conflicts of interest: C.B.H. No relevant relationships. S.D. Research grants to author’s institution from Pfizer, GE HealthCare, Attralus, Siemens, and Philips; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk; support from Novo Nordisk for travel to an advisory board meeting. L.J.S. No relevant relationships. T.C.V. No relevant relationships. A.D.C. Grant support from GW Heart and Vascular Institute; consultant for Siemens Healthineers; equity in Cleerly. N.B. No relevant relationships. R.J.C. No relevant relationships. G.K. No relevant relationships. J.V.V. No relevant relationships. M.C.W. Support from the British Heart Foundation (FS/ICRF/20/26002); payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or education events from Canon Medical Systems, Siemens Healthineers, and Novartis; member of the Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging editorial board. M.A.M. Research support from Siemens; consulting fees from Jubilant and Philips; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Jubilant. D.S.B. Receives software royalties from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center; consultant for General Electric and Bayer. A.B. No relevant relationships. R.W.B. No relevant relationships. P.E.B. No relevant relationships. M.J.B. Grant support from General Electric. R.P.B.P. Women as One grant ($25 000), paid to author’s institution; Knowledge to Practice honoraria ($500) for being a panelist during a virtual educational event; honoraria ($1000, $2500) from American College of Radiology for CME education products; member of American Society of Nuclear Cardiology board of directors, Intersocietal Accreditation Commission CT board of directors, and American College of Cardiology board of governors. M.Y.C. No relevant relationships. M.P.D. Salary support from Genentech for COVID-19 research. R.D. No relevant relationships. M.F. Grants or contracts from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Heart Association (AHA); consulting fees from Biography, Elucid, HeartFlow, and Siemens Healthineers; vice-president of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography; stock or stock options in Elucid. J.B.G. No relevant relationships. F.G.H. Grant support from GE HealthCare. R.C.H. No relevant relationships. L.K. Member of the Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging editorial board. V.L.M. Grants or contracts from the NIH, AHA, and Siemens; consulting fees from Siemens, INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions, and Ionetix; member of AHA Cardiovascular Radiology and Interventions Council Leadership Committee and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Program Committee; stock in General Electric, Ionetix, and Cardinal Health; scientific advisor to Ionetix; received software from INVIA Medical Imaging Solutions. J.N. No relevant relationships. P.F.R.L. Grants or contracts from iTHRIV Scholar, which is supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the NIH (award nos. UL1TR003015 and KL2TR003016); patent planned, issued, or pending number 3062/140PCT/US for "Methods, systems, and computer-readable media for utilizing US device to perform MV decalcification." N.R.S. Grant support from Pfizer; stock in General Electric. A.S. No relevant relationships. P.S. Grant funding from Pfizer to author’s institution and from Astellas; royalties from UpToDate; personal consulting fees from Bridgebio (Eidos), Spectrum Dynamics, Pfizer, and Alnylam; member of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology board of directors. R.C.T. No relevant relationships. D.W. Consultant for Astellas, BridgeBio, Pfizer, and Alnylam advisory boards; payment for speakers bureaus work from Astellas and Pfizer; chair of ASNC Health Policy Committee; member of advisory boards of Bridge Bio and Alynylam, and grant interviewer for Ionis. Y.A.C. No relevant relationships. E.M. No relevant relationships. M.J.R. No relevant relationships. J.L.M. No relevant relationships. P.P. Consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. M.S. No relevant relationships. T.N.B.P. No relevant relationships. Y.P. No relevant relationships. M.D. No relevant relationships. D.P. No relevant relationships. A.J.E. Support from the International Atomic Energy Agency to Columbia University; grants from GE HealthCare, Canon Medical Systems, W.L. Gore & Associates, Eidos Therapeutics, Attralus, Pfizer, Roche Medical Systems, and Neovasc to Columbia University; speaker’s fees from Ionetix; consulting fees from W. L. Gore & Associates; support from the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging for attending meetings and/or travel; patents planned, issued, or pending for Columbia Technology Ventures; leadership or fiduciary role in the American College of Cardiology, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging; and authorship fees from Wolters Kluwer Healthcare–UpToDate., (© 2023 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.)

As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus pandemic continues to grow globally, an association is apparent between patients with underlying cardiovascular disease comorbidities and the risk of developing severe COVID-19. Furthermore, there are potential cardiac manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 including myocyte injury, ventricular dysfunction, coagulopathy, and electrophysiologic abnormalities. Balancing management of the infection and treatment of underlying cardiovascular disease requires further study. Addressing the increasing reports of health care worker exposure and deaths remains paramount. This review summarizes the most contemporary literature on the relationship of the cardiovascular system and COVID-19 and society statements with relevance to protection of health care workers, and provides illustrative case reports in this context., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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 1 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., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The American College of Cardiology collaborated with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Valve Society, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons to develop and evaluate Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This is the first AUC to address the topic of AS and its treatment options, including surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). A number of common patient scenarios experienced in daily practice were developed along with assumptions and definitions for those scenarios, which were all created using guidelines, clinical trial data, and expert opinion in the field of AS. The 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines(1) and its 2017 focused update paper (2) were used as the primary guiding references in developing these indications. The writing group identified 95 clinical scenarios based on patient symptoms and clinical presentation, and up to 6 potential treatment options for those patients. A separate, independent rating panel was asked to score each indication from 1 to 9, with 1-3 categorized as "Rarely Appropriate," 4-6 as "May Be Appropriate," and 7-9 as "Appropriate." After considering factors such as symptom status, left ventricular (LV) function, surgical risk, and the presence of concomitant coronary or other valve disease, the rating panel determined that either SAVR or TAVR is Appropriate in most patients with symptomatic AS at intermediate or high surgical risk; however, situations commonly arise in clinical practice in which the indications for SAVR or TAVR are less clear, including situations in which 1 form of valve replacement would appear reasonable when the other is less so, as do other circumstances in which neither intervention is the suitable treatment option. The purpose of this AUC is to provide guidance to clinicians in the care of patients with severe AS by identifying the reasonable treatment and intervention options available based on the myriad clinical scenarios with which patients present. This AUC document also serves as an educational and quality improvement tool to identify patterns of care and reduce the number of rarely appropriate interventions in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Cell dose and concentration play crucial roles in phenotypic responses to cell-based therapy for heart failure., Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of allogeneic bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells identically delivered in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy., Methods and Results: Thirty patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy received in a blinded manner either 20 million (n=15) or 100 million (n=15) allogeneic human mesenchymal stem cells via transendocardial injection (0.5 cc per injection × 10 injections per patient). Patients were followed for 12 months for safety and efficacy end points. There were no treatment-emergent serious adverse events at 30 days or treatment-related serious adverse events at 12 months. The Major Adverse Cardiac Event rate was 20.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9% to 50.0%) in 20 million and 13.3% (95% CI, 3.5% to 43.6%) in 100 million ( P =0.58). Worsening heart failure rehospitalization was 20.0% (95% CI, 6.9% to 50.0%) in 20 million and 7.1% (95% CI, 1.0% to 40.9%) in 100 million ( P =0.27). Whereas scar size reduced to a similar degree in both groups: 20 million by -6.4 g (interquartile range, -13.5 to -3.4 g; P =0.001) and 100 million by -6.1 g (interquartile range, -8.1 to -4.6 g; P =0.0002), the ejection fraction improved only with 100 million by 3.7 U (interquartile range, 1.1 to 6.1; P =0.04). New York Heart Association class improved at 12 months in 35.7% (95% CI, 12.7% to 64.9%) in 20 million and 42.9% (95% CI, 17.7% to 71.1%) in 100 million. Importantly, proBNP (pro-brain natriuretic peptide) increased at 12 months in 20 million by 0.32 log pg/mL (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.62; P =0.039), but not in 100 million (-0.07 log pg/mL; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.23; P =0.65; between group P =0.07)., Conclusions: Although both cell doses reduced scar size, only the 100 million dose increased ejection fraction. This study highlights the crucial role of cell dose in the responses to cell therapy. Determining optimal dose and delivery is essential to advance the field, decipher mechanism(s) of action and enhance planning of pivotal Phase III trials., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02013674., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Although human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) have been tested in ischemic cardiomyopathy, few studies exist in chronic nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM)., Objectives: The authors conducted a randomized comparison of safety and efficacy of autologous (auto) versus allogeneic (allo) bone marrow-derived hMSCs in NIDCM., Methods: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to either allo- or auto-hMSCs in a 1:1 ratio. Patients were recruited between December 2011 and July 2015 at the University of Miami Hospital. Patients received hMSCs (100 million) by transendocardial stem cell injection in 10 left ventricular sites. Treated patients were evaluated at baseline, 30 days, and 3-, 6-, and 12-months for safety (serious adverse events [SAE]), and efficacy endpoints: ejection fraction, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, 6-min walk test, major adverse cardiac events, and immune biomarkers., Results: There were no 30-day treatment-emergent SAEs. Twelve-month SAE incidence was 28.2% with allo-hMSCs versus 63.5% with auto-hMSCs (p = 0.1004 for the comparison). One allo-hMSC patient developed an elevated (>80) donor-specific calculated panel reactive antibody level. The ejection fraction increased in allo-hMSC patients by 8.0 percentage points (p = 0.004) compared with 5.4 with auto-hMSCs (p = 0.116; allo vs. auto p = 0.4887). The 6-min walk test increased with allo-hMSCs by 37.0 m (p = 0.04), but not auto-hMSCs at 7.3 m (p = 0.71; auto vs. allo p = 0.0168). MLHFQ score decreased in allo-hMSC (p = 0.0022) and auto-hMSC patients (p = 0.463; auto vs. allo p = 0.172). The major adverse cardiac event rate was lower, too, in the allo group (p = 0.0186 vs. auto). Tumor necrosis factor-α decreased (p = 0.0001 for each), to a greater extent with allo-hMSCs versus auto-hMSCs at 6 months (p = 0.05)., Conclusions: These findings demonstrated safety and clinically meaningful efficacy of allo-hMSC versus auto-hMSC in NIDCM patients. Pivotal trials of allo-hMSCs are warranted based on these results. (Percutaneous Stem Cell Injection Delivery Effects on Neomyogenesis in Dilated Cardiomyopathy [PoseidonDCM]; NCT01392625)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interest: Dr. Hare and Dr. Heldman disclose a relationship with Vestion Inc that includes equity, board membership, and consulting. Dr. Hatzistergos and K. Valasaki disclose a relationship with Vestion Inc that includes equity. Vestion Inc did not participate in funding this work. Dr. Landin, Dr. Hare, A. Khan, and D. DiFede disclose a relationship with Longeveron LLC that includes consulting. Longeveron LLC did not participate in funding this work. D. DiFede discloses a relationship with BDS as consultant. The other authors report no conflicts., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has evolved from a pioneering research tool to an established noninvasive imaging method for detecting inducible myocardial perfusion deficits. In this consensus document, experts of different imaging techniques summarize the existing body of evidence regarding CMR perfusion as a viable complement to other established noninvasive tools for the assessment of perfusion and discuss the advantages and pitfalls of the technique. A rapid, standardized CMR perfusion protocol is described, which is safe, clinically feasible, and cost-effective for centers with contemporary magnetic resonance equipment. CMR perfusion can be recommended as a routine diagnostic tool to identify inducible myocardial ischemia., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Based upon evidence suggesting that concentrations of anti-heat shock protein-60 (anti-HSP60) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) are associated with atherogenesis, we tested the hypothesis that anti-HSP60 and IL-2 are associated with coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, a marker of subclinical atherosclerosis., Methods: We evaluated 998 asymptomatic adults, age 45-84 years, without known coronary disease from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), who had anti-HSP60 measured at baseline. Tertiles of serum anti-HSP60 were evaluated. The associations of IL-2 and anti-HSP60 with CAC were assessed using multivariate analyses, with adjustments for coronary risk factors and Framingham risk score., Results: Patients' demographics, diabetes, hypertension, obesity, or dyslipidaemia did not show differences in levels of anti-HSP60. The median (IQR) Framingham risk score was 11 (5-22), 8 (5-16), and 9 (5-18) for the first, second, and third tertiles, respectively (p=0.043). IL-2 and tumour necrosis factor α (TNF-α) were associated with increased CAC (IL-2: OR 3.70, p<0.001; TNF-α: OR 4.63, p<0.001). In multivariate regression, the highest tertiles of anti-HSP60 and IL-2 were associated with increased risk of CAC (HSP60 T3: OR 1.49, p=0.022; IL-2: OR 2.49, p<0.001). After adjustment, significant progression of CAC was observed in patients with higher baseline levels of anti-HSP60 (estimate 31.73, p=0.016) and IL-2 (estimate 34.39, p=0.024)., Conclusions: Increased concentrations of inflammatory markers (IL-2 and anti-HSP60) are associated with an increased CAC at baseline and follow-up in healthy asymptomatic adults. Future studies should be carried out to assess its association with early development of atherosclerosis., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

The current paper details the recommendations arising from an NIH-NHLBI/NCI-sponsored symposium held in November 2012, aiming to identify key components of a radiation accountability framework fostering patient-centered imaging and shared decision-making in cardiac imaging. Symposium participants, working in 3 tracks, identified key components of a framework to target critical radiation safety issues for the patient, the laboratory, and the larger population of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. The use of ionizing radiation during an imaging procedure should be disclosed to all patients by the ordering provider at the time of ordering, and reinforced by the performing provider team. An imaging protocol with effective dose ≤3 mSv is considered very low risk, not warranting extensive discussion or written informed consent. However, a protocol effective dose >20 mSv was proposed as a level requiring particular attention in terms of shared decision-making and either formal discussion or written informed consent. Laboratory reporting of radiation dosimetry is a critical component of creating a quality laboratory fostering a patient-centered environment with transparent procedural methodology. Efforts should be directed to avoiding testing involving radiation, in patients with inappropriate indications. Standardized reporting and diagnostic reference levels for computed tomography and nuclear cardiology are important for the goal of public reporting of laboratory radiation dose levels in conjunction with diagnostic performance. The development of cardiac imaging technologies revolutionized cardiology practice by allowing routine, noninvasive assessment of myocardial perfusion and anatomy. It is now incumbent upon the imaging community to create an accountability framework to safely drive appropriate imaging utilization., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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 1-9, 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.

Background: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to aid in the optimal use of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), a technique that is a mainstay of risk assessment for ischemic heart disease. The impact of appropriate use on the prognostic value of SPECT-MPI is unknown., Methods and Results: A prospective cohort study of 1511 consecutive patients undergoing outpatient, community-based SPECT-MPI was conducted. Subjects were stratified on the basis of the 2009 AUC for SPECT-MPI into an appropriate or uncertain appropriateness group and an inappropriate group. Patients were prospectively followed up for 27±10 months for major adverse cardiac events of death, death or myocardial infarction, and cardiac death or myocardial infarction. In the entire cohort, the 167 subjects (11%) with an abnormal scan experienced significantly higher rates of major adverse cardiac events and coronary revascularization than those with normal MPI. Among the 823 subjects (54.5%) whose MPIs were classified as appropriate (779, 51.6%) or uncertain (44, 2.9%), an abnormal scan predicted a multifold increase in the rates of death (9.2% versus 2.6%; hazard ratio, 3.1; P=0.004), death or myocardial infarction (11.8% versus 3.3%; hazard ratio, 3.3; P=0.001), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (6.7% versus 1.7%; hazard ratio, 3.7; P=0.006), and revascularization (24.7% versus 2.7%; hazard ratio, 11.4; P<0.001). Among the 688 subjects (45.5%) with MPI classified as inappropriate, an abnormal MPI failed to predict major adverse cardiac events, although it was associated with a high revascularization rate. Furthermore, appropriate MPI use provided incremental prognostic value beyond myocardial perfusion and ejection fraction data., Conclusions: When performed for appropriate indications, SPECT-MPI continues to demonstrate high prognostic value. However, inappropriate use lacks effectiveness for risk stratification, further emphasizing the need for optimal patient selection for cardiac testing.