ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 Appropriateness Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging* * Developed in accordance with the principles and methodology outlined by ACCF: Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, Hendel RC, Douglas PS, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Raskin IE.

Robert C. Hendel, Manesh R. Patel, Christopher M. Kramer, Michael Poon, Robert C. Hendel, James C. Carr, Nancy A. Gerstad, Linda D. Gillam, John Mc B. Hodgson, Raymond J. Kim, Christopher M. Kramer, John R. Lesser, Edward T. Martin, Joseph V. Messer, Rita F. Redberg, Geoffrey D. Rubin, John S. Rumsfeld, Allen J. Taylor, Wm Guy Weigold, Pamela K. WoodardRalph G. Brindis, Robert C. Hendel, Pamela S. Douglas, Eric D. Peterson, Michael J. Wolk, Joseph M. Allen, Manesh R. Patel

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1012 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Full title. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1475-1497
Number of pages23
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume48
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 3 2006

Fingerprint

Cardiology
Tomography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Regional Health Planning
Delphi Technique
Practice Guidelines
Radiology
Coronary Artery Disease
Decision Making
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Physicians
Direction compound

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Hendel, Robert C. ; Patel, Manesh R. ; Kramer, Christopher M. ; Poon, Michael ; Hendel, Robert C. ; Carr, James C. ; Gerstad, Nancy A. ; Gillam, Linda D. ; Hodgson, John Mc B. ; Kim, Raymond J. ; Kramer, Christopher M. ; Lesser, John R. ; Martin, Edward T. ; Messer, Joseph V. ; Redberg, Rita F. ; Rubin, Geoffrey D. ; Rumsfeld, John S. ; Taylor, Allen J. ; Weigold, Wm Guy ; Woodard, Pamela K. ; Brindis, Ralph G. ; Hendel, Robert C. ; Douglas, Pamela S. ; Peterson, Eric D. ; Wolk, Michael J. ; Allen, Joseph M. ; Patel, Manesh R. / ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 Appropriateness Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging* * Developed in accordance with the principles and methodology outlined by ACCF : Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, Hendel RC, Douglas PS, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Raskin IE. In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2006 ; Vol. 48, No. 7. pp. 1475-1497.
@article{79fc5924eb65480fb0cb5fb735a20437,
title = "ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 Appropriateness Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging* * Developed in accordance with the principles and methodology outlined by ACCF: Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, Hendel RC, Douglas PS, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Raskin IE.",
abstract = "Full title. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. 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.",
author = "Hendel, {Robert C.} and Patel, {Manesh R.} and Kramer, {Christopher M.} and Michael Poon and Hendel, {Robert C.} and Carr, {James C.} and Gerstad, {Nancy A.} and Gillam, {Linda D.} and Hodgson, {John Mc B.} and Kim, {Raymond J.} and Kramer, {Christopher M.} and Lesser, {John R.} and Martin, {Edward T.} and Messer, {Joseph V.} and Redberg, {Rita F.} and Rubin, {Geoffrey D.} and Rumsfeld, {John S.} and Taylor, {Allen J.} and Weigold, {Wm Guy} and Woodard, {Pamela K.} and Brindis, {Ralph G.} and Hendel, {Robert C.} and Douglas, {Pamela S.} and Peterson, {Eric D.} and Wolk, {Michael J.} and Allen, {Joseph M.} and Patel, {Manesh R.}",
year = "2006",
month = "10",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacc.2006.07.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "1475--1497",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "7",

}

Hendel, RC, Patel, MR, Kramer, CM, Poon, M, Hendel, RC, Carr, JC, Gerstad, NA, Gillam, LD, Hodgson, JMB, Kim, RJ, Kramer, CM, Lesser, JR, Martin, ET, Messer, JV, Redberg, RF, Rubin, GD, Rumsfeld, JS, Taylor, AJ, Weigold, WG, Woodard, PK, Brindis, RG, Hendel, RC, Douglas, PS, Peterson, ED, Wolk, MJ, Allen, JM & Patel, MR 2006, 'ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 Appropriateness Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging* * Developed in accordance with the principles and methodology outlined by ACCF: Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, Hendel RC, Douglas PS, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Raskin IE.', Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1475-1497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2006.07.003

ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 Appropriateness Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging* * Developed in accordance with the principles and methodology outlined by ACCF : Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, Hendel RC, Douglas PS, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Raskin IE. / Hendel, Robert C.; Patel, Manesh R.; Kramer, Christopher M.; Poon, Michael; Hendel, Robert C.; Carr, James C.; Gerstad, Nancy A.; Gillam, Linda D.; Hodgson, John Mc B.; Kim, Raymond J.; Kramer, Christopher M.; Lesser, John R.; Martin, Edward T.; Messer, Joseph V.; Redberg, Rita F.; Rubin, Geoffrey D.; Rumsfeld, John S.; Taylor, Allen J.; Weigold, Wm Guy; Woodard, Pamela K.; Brindis, Ralph G.; Hendel, Robert C.; Douglas, Pamela S.; Peterson, Eric D.; Wolk, Michael J.; Allen, Joseph M.; Patel, Manesh R.

In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 48, No. 7, 03.10.2006, p. 1475-1497.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 Appropriateness Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging* * Developed in accordance with the principles and methodology outlined by ACCF

T2 - Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, Hendel RC, Douglas PS, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Raskin IE.

AU - Hendel, Robert C.

AU - Patel, Manesh R.

AU - Kramer, Christopher M.

AU - Poon, Michael

AU - Hendel, Robert C.

AU - Carr, James C.

AU - Gerstad, Nancy A.

AU - Gillam, Linda D.

AU - Hodgson, John Mc B.

AU - Kim, Raymond J.

AU - Kramer, Christopher M.

AU - Lesser, John R.

AU - Martin, Edward T.

AU - Messer, Joseph V.

AU - Redberg, Rita F.

AU - Rubin, Geoffrey D.

AU - Rumsfeld, John S.

AU - Taylor, Allen J.

AU - Weigold, Wm Guy

AU - Woodard, Pamela K.

AU - Brindis, Ralph G.

AU - Hendel, Robert C.

AU - Douglas, Pamela S.

AU - Peterson, Eric D.

AU - Wolk, Michael J.

AU - Allen, Joseph M.

AU - Patel, Manesh R.

PY - 2006/10/3

Y1 - 2006/10/3

N2 - Full title. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. 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.

AB - Full title. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749061448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749061448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.07.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.07.003

M3 - Review article

C2 - 17010819

AN - SCOPUS:33749061448

VL - 48

SP - 1475

EP - 1497

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 7

ER -