Joseph M. Allen

Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines.

CONTEXT The joint cardiovascular practice guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have become important documents for guiding cardiology practice and establishing benchmarks for quality of care. OBJECTIVE To describe the evolution of recommendations in ACC/AHA cardiovascular guidelines and the distribution of recommendations across classes of recommendations and levels of evidence. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION Data from all ACC/AHA practice guidelines issued from 1984 to September 2008 were abstracted by personnel in the ACC Science and Quality Division. Fifty-three guidelines on 22 topics, including a total of 7196 recommendations, were abstracted. DATA EXTRACTION The number of recommendations and the distribution of classes of recommendation (I, II, and III) and levels of evidence (A, B, and C) were determined. The subset of guidelines that were current as of September 2008 was evaluated to describe changes in recommendations between the first and current versions as well as patterns in levels of evidence used in the current versions. RESULTS Among guidelines with at least 1 revision or update by September 2008, the number of recommendations increased from 1330 to 1973 (+48%) from the first to the current version, with the largest increase observed in use of class II recommendations. Considering the 16 current guidelines reporting levels of evidence, only 314 recommendations of 2711 total are classified as level of evidence A (median, 11%), whereas 1246 (median, 48%) are level of evidence C. Level of evidence significantly varies across categories of guidelines (disease, intervention, or diagnostic) and across individual guidelines. Recommendations with level of evidence A are mostly concentrated in class I, but only 245 of 1305 class I recommendations have level of evidence A (median, 19%). CONCLUSIONS Recommendations issued in current ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence or expert opinion. The proportion of recommendations for which there is no conclusive evidence is also growing. These findings highlight the need to improve the process of writing guidelines and to expand the evidence base from which clinical practice guidelines are derived.

ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography

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.

ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1128 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1128

ACCF/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2013 multimodality appropriate use criteria for the detection and risk assessment of stable ischemic heart disease

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.

ACCF/HRS/AHA/ASE/HFSA/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2013 appropriate use criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy

Steven R. Bailey, MD, FACC, FSCAI, FAHA, Moderator Andrea M. Russo, MD, FACC, FHRS, Writing Group Liaison [⁎][1] Suraj Kapa, MD, Writing Group Liaison Michael B. Alexander, MD, FACC[§][2] Steven R. Bailey, MD, FACC, FSCAI, FAHA[∥][3] Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green, MD, FHRS[∥][3] Alan S.

ACCF/ASE/ACEP/AHA/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2008 Appropriateness Criteria for Stress Echocardiography. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions...

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.

A Multicenter Assessment of the Use of Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging With Appropriateness Criteria

OBJECTIVES The 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. BACKGROUND Although 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. METHODS Six 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. RESULTS Of 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. CONCLUSIONS The 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.

Appropriate use of cardiovascular technology: 2013 ACCF appropriate use criteria methodology update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation appropriate use criteria task force.

The past several decades have seen rapid and extensive changes in the practice of cardiology, especially in the innovation and utilization practices of imaging, interventional, and electrophysiology procedures. Enhanced radionuclide imaging techniques, evolution of echocardiography, development of

The Use of a Learning Community and Online Evaluation of Utilization for SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

Resource-sensitive and quality-centered imaging begins with the selection of the appropriate patient and test. Appropriate use criteria have been developed to aid clinicians but are often not available in an easily accessible format. FOCUS (Formation of Optimal Cardiovascular Utilization Strategies), a Web-based community and quality improvement instrument, was developed to increase the feasibility of measuring and improving practice patterns based on the appropriate use criteria. The FOCUS instrument proposed to reduce inappropriate imaging by 15% in 1 year and by 50% within 3 years. Between April 2010 and December 2011, data were voluntarily collected through the FOCUS radionuclide imaging performance improvement module (PIM). Appropriateness rates were compared between phases of the PIM. For the 55 participating sites that had completed the PIM by December 2011, the proportion of inappropriate cases decreased from 10% to 5% (p < 0.0001). These preliminary data from initial participating sites suggest that through the use of a self-directed, quality improvement software and an interactive community, physicians may be able to significantly decrease the proportion of tests not meeting appropriate use criteria.

Pediatric Appropriate Use Criteria Implementation Project: A Multicenter Outpatient Echocardiography Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND Recently published appropriate use criteria (AUC) for initial pediatric outpatient transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) have not yet been evaluated for clinical applicability. OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the appropriateness of TTE as currently performed in pediatric cardiology clinics, diagnostic yield of TTE for various AUC indications, and any gaps in the AUC document. METHODS Data were prospectively collected from patients undergoing initial outpatient TTE in 6 centers. TTE indications (appropriate [A], may be appropriate [M], or rarely appropriate [R]) and findings (normal, incidental, or abnormal) were recorded. RESULTS Of the 2,655 studies ordered by 102 physicians, indications rated A, M, and R were found in 1,876 (71%), 316 (12%), and 319 studies (12%), respectively, and 144 studies (5%) were unclassifiable. Twenty-four of 113 indications (21%) were not used. Innocent murmur and syncope or palpitations with no other indications of cardiovascular disease, a benign family history, and normal electrocardiogram accounted for 75% of indications rated R. Pathologic murmur had the highest yield of abnormal findings (40%). Odds of an abnormal finding in an A or M TTE were 6 times that of R (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.8 to 12.8]). Abnormal findings were more common in patients <1 year of age than in those >10 years of age (odds ratio: 6.4; 95% CI: 4.7 to 8.7). Age was a significant predictor of an abnormal finding after adjusting for indication and site (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Most TTEs ordered in pediatric cardiology clinics were for indications rated A. AUC ratings successfully stratified indications based on the yield of abnormal findings. This study identified differences in the yield of TTE based on patient age and most common indications rated R. These findings should inform quality improvement efforts and future revisions of the AUC document.