Search

John U. Doherty, MD, FACC, Co-Chair Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, MACC, Co-Chair Nicole M. Bhave, MD, FACC Stacie L. Daugherty, MD, MSPH, FACC Larry S. Dean, MD, FACC Milind Y. Desai, MBBS, FACC Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, FACC[∗][1] Linda D. Gillam, MD, FACC Praveen Mehrotra, MD, FACC Ritu

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 (ACCF), in partnership with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where noninvasive vascular testing (venous ultrasound and physiological testing) is frequently considered. The indications (clinical

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.

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 update of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization frequently considered. In the initial document, 180 clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document, and the definition of appropriateness was unchanged. The technical panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate and likely to improve patients' health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization is considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization will improve health outcomes or survival is uncertain. In general, as seen with the prior AUC, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia is appropriate. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy are viewed less favorably. The technical panel felt that based on recent studies, coronary artery bypass grafting remains an appropriate method of revascularization for patients with high burden of coronary artery disease (CAD). Additionally, percutaneous coronary intervention may have a role in revascularization of patients with high burden of CAD. The primary objective of the appropriate use criteria is to improve physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and to guide future research.

The authors sought to explore the use and perceptions of clinical practice guidelines among internal medicine physicians. Through a Web-based survey, 201 board-certified internal medicine physicians rated their opinions on several statements using 7-point Likert scales. Most respondents (74.7%) felt that guidelines were suitable for at least half of their patients, although a failure to take comorbid conditions into account was a frequently cited barrier. For patients with cardiovascular disease, there was no difference between individual internists' perceptions of their own compliance with guidelines and their estimates of cardiologists' compliance (P = .14). A large majority of respondents (70.7%) believed that guideline committee member participation in industry-funded research introduces bias into guideline content (median [interquartile range], 5 [4-6]). Although most respondents felt that measuring physicians against guideline-based performance measures encourages evidence-based medicine (76.5%), opinions were split as to whether this practice distracts from patient care or compromises physician autonomy.

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

Inherent in the doctor–patient relationship is the desire for physicians to use available knowledge and judgment to provide the best possible care to their patients. In return, physicians hope to earn the trust and respect of their patients and community. Physicians have the historical opportunity

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.

Vincent J. Bufalino, MD, FACC, Co-Chair Fred M. Krainin, MD, FACC, Co-Chair James C. Blankenship, MD, FACC Kenneth Brin, MD, PHD, FACC Paul N. Casale, MD, FACC Jerry D. Kennett, MD, FACC Joseph V. Messer, MD, MACC Frank Mikkell, JR, MD, FACC George P. Rodgers, MD, FACC Jane E. Schauer, MD

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), in partnership with the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) and along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where echocardiography is frequently considered. This document combines and updates the original transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography appropriateness criteria published in 2007 (1) and the original stress echocardiography appropriateness criteria published in 2008 (2). This revision reflects new clinical data, reflects changes in test utilization patterns,and clarifies echocardiography use where omissions or lack of clarity existed in the original criteria.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 202 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). Ninety-seven indications were rated as appropriate, 34 were rated as uncertain, and 71 were rated as inappropriate. In general,the use of echocardiography for initial diagnosis when there is a change in clinical status or when the results of the echocardiogram are anticipated to change patient management were rated appropriate. Routine testing when there was no change in clinical status or when results of testing were unlikely to modify management were more likely to be inappropriate than appropriate/uncertain.The AUC for echocardiography 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.

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), 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.

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 computed tomography (CCT) is frequently considered. The present document is an update to the original CCT/cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) 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 (CAD) 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 (CT) 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.

(2002). Measurement of Cupric Ion Activity in Soil Solutions to Evaluate Site-Specific Copper Bioavailability. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal: Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 380-380.

The fins of many fish species are modified for functions that have little to do with swimming ability. In fact, the elaborate changes in fin size and shape shown in species such as the guppy, Poecilia reticulata and the Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens, would appear to be detrimental to optimal swimming performance. Two hypothesis have been proposed to explain the evolution of these sexually dimorphic, elaborate characters. The first hypothesis is that females prefer males with larger fins (Bischoff et al., 1985; Farr, 1989; Basolo, 1990). The second hypothesis contends that larger fins play a role in male-male competition (see Farr, 1989; KodricBrown, 1990). The preceding studies not withstanding, very little is known about the function of elaborate fins in fishes.

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.

Under the auspices of the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, appropriateness reviews were conducted for 2 relatively new clinical cardiac imaging modalities, cardiac computed tomography (CCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The reviews assessed the risks and benefits of the imaging tests 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) indicates an uncertain clinical scenario. The indications for these reviews were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as few clinical practice guidelines currently exist for these techniques. These indications were reviewed by an independent group of clinicians and modified by the Working Group, and then panelists rated the indications based on the ACCF Methodology for Evaluating the Appropriateness of Cardiovascular Imaging, which blends scientific evidence and practice experience. A modified Delphi technique was used to obtain first and second round ratings of clinical indications after the panelists were provided with a set of literature reviews, evidence tables, and seminal references. The final ratings were evenly distributed among the 3 categories of appropriateness for both CCT and CMR. Use of tests for structure and function and for diagnosis in symptomatic, intermediate coronary artery disease (CAD) risk patients was deemed appropriate, while repeat testing and general screening uses were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and future research directions.

Stress in the alveolus at the apex is reduced when the implant is held by a pin through the alveolar wall. This stress reduction is effected by transfer of part of the coronal force to the alveolar wall by the pin. Pin positions centrally located between the apex and the alveolar crest provide the greatest reduction of stress concentration in the alveolus at the apex. Since the bone is especially fragile near the alveolar crest, care must be taken when the pin is positioned in this region. Positioning the pin near the apex has the least effect on reducing the stress in the alveolus at the apex. Although no data were obtained relating to stress in the alveolar wall at points of pin penetration, results given here do indicate that from 7 to 30% of the intrusion component of the coronal force is transmitted to the alveolar wall by the pin. Additional research is needed to determine the effects of stress at the pin through the alveolar wall because of load transfer by the pin from the implant to the alveolar wall. The situation in the alveolar wall would be one of creation of a completely unnatural stress rather than reduction of an existing stress, as was the case at the apex. Whether the reduction of stress at the apex and the creation of stress at the pin through the alveolar wall are of physiological benefit is a question that must yet be answered.