Robert C. Hendel
American College of Cardiology
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Robert C. Hendel.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2013
Andrea M. Russo; Raymond F. Stainback; Steven R. Bailey; Andrew E. Epstein; Paul A. Heidenreich; Mariell Jessup; Suraj Kapa; Mark S. Kremers; Bruce D. Lindsay; Lynne W. Stevenson; Michael B. Alexander; Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green; Alan S. Brown; Richard A. Grimm; Paul J. Hauptman; Sharon A. Hunt; Rachel Lampert; JoAnn Lindenfeld; David J. Malenka; Kartik Mani; Joseph E. Marine; Edward T. Martin; Richard L. Page; Michael W. Rich; Paul D. Varosy; Mary Norine Walsh; Michael J. Wolk; John U. Doherty; Pamela S. Douglas; Robert C. Hendel
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.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2013
Robert C. Hendel; Manesh R. Patel; Joseph M. Allen; James K. Min; Leslee J. Shaw; Michael J. Wolk; Pamela S. Douglas; Christopher M. Kramer; Raymond F. Stainback; Steven R. Bailey; John U. Doherty; Ralph G. Brindis
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
Journal of The American College of Radiology | 2016
Frank J. Rybicki; James E. Udelson; W. Frank Peacock; Samuel Z. Goldhaber; Eric M. Isselbacher; Ella Kazerooni; Michael C. Kontos; Harold I. Litt; Pamela K. Woodard; Joseph S. Alpert; George A. Andrews; Edward P. Chen; David T. Cooke; Ricardo C. Cury; Daniel Edmundowicz; Victor A. Ferrari; Louis G. Graff; Judd E. Hollander; Lloyd W. Klein; J. Leipsic; Phillip D. Levy; John J. Mahmarian; Craig Rosenberg; Geoffrey D. Rubin; R. Parker Ward; Charles S. White; E. Kent Yucel; J. Jeffrey Carr; Richard D. White; Manesh R. Patel
Corresponding author and reprints: Frank J. Rybicki, MD, PhD, The Ottawa H E-mail: [email protected]. This document was approved by the American College of Radiology Board June 2015. The American College of Cardiology requests that this document be cited EM, Kazerooni E, Kontos MC, Litt H, Woodard PK. 2015 ACR/ACC/AHA/AATS utilization of cardiovascular imaging in emergency department patients wi priateness Criteria Committee and the American College of Cardiology Appr Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the Ame of Radiology (http://www.acr.org). For copies of this document, please co [email protected]. Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, an permission of the American College of Cardiology. Requests may be complete permission-to-re-use-elsevier-material). Harold Litt, MD, PHD Pamela K. Woodard, MD
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions | 2008
Pamela S. Douglas; Bijoy K. Khandheria; Raymond F. Stainback; Neil J. Weissman; Eric D. Peterson; Robert C. Hendel; Michael Blaivas; Roger D. Des Prez; Linda D. Gillam; Terry Golash; Loren F. Hiratzka; William G. Kussmaul; Arthur J. Labovitz; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Frederick A. Masoudi; Paul H. Mayo; David Porembka; John A. Spertus; L. Samuel Wann; Susan E. Wiegers; Ralph G. Brindis; Manesh R. Patel; Michael J. Wolk; Joseph M. Allen
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.
Journal of The American College of Radiology | 2016
Frank J. Rybicki; James E. Udelson; W. Frank Peacock; Samuel Z. Goldhaber; Eric M. Isselbacher; Ella Kazerooni; Michael C. Kontos; Harold I. Litt; Pamela K. Woodard; Joseph S. Alpert; George A. Andrews; Edward P. Chen; David T. Cooke; Ricardo C. Cury; Daniel Edmundowicz; Victor A. Ferrari; Louis G. Graff; Judd E. Hollander; Lloyd W. Klein; J. Leipsic; Phillip D. Levy; John J. Mahmarian; Craig Rosenberg; Geoffrey D. Rubin; R. Parker Ward; Charles S. White; E. Kent Yucel; J. Jeffrey Carr; Richard D. White; Manesh R. Patel
Corresponding author and reprints: Frank J. Rybicki, MD, PhD, The Ottawa H E-mail: [email protected]. This document was approved by the American College of Radiology Board June 2015. The American College of Cardiology requests that this document be cited EM, Kazerooni E, Kontos MC, Litt H, Woodard PK. 2015 ACR/ACC/AHA/AATS utilization of cardiovascular imaging in emergency department patients wi priateness Criteria Committee and the American College of Cardiology Appr Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the Ame of Radiology (http://www.acr.org). For copies of this document, please co [email protected]. Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, an permission of the American College of Cardiology. Requests may be complete permission-to-re-use-elsevier-material). Harold Litt, MD, PHD Pamela K. Woodard, MD
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions | 2012
Manesh R. Patel; Steven R. Bailey; Robert O. Bonow; Charles E. Chambers; Paul S. Chan; Gregory J. Dehmer; Ajay J. Kirtane; L. Samuel Wann; R. Parker Ward; Pamela S. Douglas; Philip Altus; Denise Barnard; James C. Blankenship; Donald E. Casey; Larry S. Dean; Reza Fazel; Ian C. Gilchrist; Clifford J. Kavinsky; Susan G. Lakoski; D. Elizabeth Le; John R. Lesser; Glenn N. Levine; Roxana Mehran; Andrea M. Russo; Matthew J. Sorrentino; Mathew R. Williams; John Wong; Michael J. Wolk; Robert C. Hendel; Christopher M. Kramer
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.
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions | 2012
Manesh R. Patel; Steven R. Bailey; Robert O. Bonow; Charles E. Chambers; Paul S. Chan; Gregory J. Dehmer; Ajay J. Kirtane; L. Samuel Wann; R. Parker Ward; Pamela S. Douglas; Philip Altus; James C. Blankenship; Donald E. Casey; Larry S. Dean; Reza Fazel; Ian C. Gilchrist; Clifford J. Kavinsky; Susan G. Lakoski; D. Elizabeth Le; John R. Lesser; Glenn N. Levine; Roxana Mehran; Andrea M. Russo; Matthew J. Sorrentino; Mathew R. Williams; John Wong; Michael J. Wolk; Robert C. Hendel; Christopher M. Kramer; James K. Min
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.
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology | 2004
Athanasios Kapetanopoulos; Gary V. Heller; Harry P. Selker; Robin Ruthazer; Joni R. Beshansky; James A. Feldman; John L. Griffith; Robert C. Hendel; J. Hector Pope; Ethan J. Spiegler; James E. Udelson
Archive | 2011
James P. Earls; Richard D. White; Pamela K. Woodard; Suhny Abbara; Michael K. Atalay; J. Jeffrey Carr; Linda B. Haramati; Robert C. Hendel; Vincent B. Ho; Udo Hoffman; Arfa Khan; Leena Mammen; Edward T. Martin; Anna Rozenshtein; Thomas J. Ryan; Joseph Schoepf; Robert M. Steiner; Charles S. White
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions | 2009
Manesh R. Patel; Gregory J. Dehmer; John W. Hirshfeld; Peter K. Smith; John A. Spertus; Frederick A. Masoudi; Ralph G. Brindis; Karen J. Beckman; Charles E. Chambers; T. Bruce Ferguson; Mario J. Garcia; Frederick L. Grover; David R. Holmes; Lloyd W. Klein; Marian C. Limacher; Michael J. Mack; David J. Malenka; Myung H. Park; Michael Ragosta; James L. Ritchie; Geoffrey A. Rose; Alan Rosenberg; Richard J. Shemin; William S. Weintraub; Michael J. Wolk; Joseph M. Allen; Pamela S. Douglas; Robert C. Hendel; Eric D. Peterson