Suppr超能文献

美国心脏病学会基金会/美国核心脏病学会单光子发射计算机断层扫描心肌灌注成像适宜性标准的评估

Evaluation of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology appropriateness criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging.

作者信息

Mehta Rupa, Ward R Parker, Chandra Sonal, Agarwal Richa, Williams Kim Allan

机构信息

Section of Cardiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill 60637, USA.

出版信息

J Nucl Cardiol. 2008 May-Jun;15(3):337-44. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.10.010. Epub 2008 Apr 16.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology appropriateness criteria (AC) were created to guide responsible use of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Clinical applicability of the AC has not been evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Indications for testing were determined in 1209 patients and categorized as having appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate indications; the specialty of the ordering physician was noted. There were 940 (80%) appropriate, 154 (13%) inappropriate, and 79 (7%) uncertain tests; 36 tests were labeled "no category," as these were ordered for indications not clearly addressed in the AC. Inappropriate studies had more normal and lower summed stress scores, although there remained a high proportion of abnormal SPECT studies in this group (26% of women and 50% of men). Women had lower summed stress scores and more normal tests in the appropriate and inappropriate groups. Studies ordered by anesthesiologists for preoperative evaluation were more likely to be deemed inappropriate than other specialty groups.

CONCLUSION

In evaluating the AC in a single-center academic setting, the majority of studies are appropriate, but a large proportion of ordered SPECT studies were categorized as uncertain, inappropriate, or no category. Although the inappropriate studies showed less ischemia than other groups, especially in women, a substantial portion of these studies (32%) were abnormal.

摘要

背景

美国心脏病学会基金会/美国核心脏病学会适宜性标准(AC)旨在指导单光子发射计算机断层扫描(SPECT)的合理使用。AC的临床适用性尚未得到评估。

方法与结果

确定了1209例患者的检查指征,并将其分类为具有适宜、不确定或不适宜的指征;记录了开单医生的专业。有940例(80%)检查指征适宜,154例(13%)不适宜,79例(7%)不确定;36例检查被标记为“无分类”,因为这些检查的指征在AC中未明确提及。不适宜的检查有更多正常和更低的总应激评分,尽管该组中SPECT检查异常的比例仍然很高(女性为26%,男性为50%)。在适宜和不适宜组中,女性的总应激评分较低,正常检查较多。麻醉科医生为术前评估所开的检查比其他专业组更有可能被认为是不适宜的。

结论

在单中心学术环境中评估AC时,大多数检查是适宜的,但很大一部分已开单的SPECT检查被分类为不确定、不适宜或无分类。尽管不适宜的检查显示出的缺血情况比其他组少,尤其是在女性中,但这些检查中有很大一部分(32%)是异常的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验