Medical Service, Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Gainesville, Florida2Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Weston, Florida.
JAMA Cardiol. 2016 May 1;1(2):207-10. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0030.
Appropriate use criteria (AUC) assist health care professionals in making decisions about procedures and diagnostic testing. In some cases, multiple AUC exist for a single procedure or test. To date, the extent of agreement between multiple AUC has not been evaluated.
To measure discordance between the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) AUC and the American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria for gauging the appropriateness of nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study at an academically affiliated Veterans Affairs medical center. Participants were Veteran patients who underwent nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging between December 2010 and July 2011 with rating of appropriateness by the ACCF and ACR criteria. Analysis was performed in March 2015.
The primary outcome was the agreement of appropriateness category as measured by κ statistic. The secondary outcome was a comparison of nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging results and frequency of ischemia across appropriateness categories for the 2 rating methods.
Of 67 indications in the ACCF AUC, 35 (52.2%) could not be matched to an ACR rating, 18 (26.9%) had the same appropriateness category, and 14 (20.9%) disagreed on appropriateness. The study cohort comprised 592 individuals. Their mean (SD) age was 62.6 (9.4) years, and 570 of 592 (96.2%) were male. When applied to the patient cohort, 111 patients (18.8%) could not be matched to an ACR rating, 349 patients (59.0%) had the same appropriateness category for the ACR and ACCF methods, and 132 patients (22.3%) were discordant. Overall, the agreement of appropriateness between the 2 methods was poor (κ = 0.34, P < .001). Ischemia was rare among patients rated as "inappropriate" by the ACCF AUC (1 of 39 patients [2.6%]), while ischemia was more common among patients rated as "usually not appropriate" by the ACR Appropriateness Criteria (14 of 80 patients [17.5%]).
Substantial discordance may exist between methods for assessing the appropriateness of advanced imaging tests. Discordance in methods may translate into differences in clinically relevant outcomes, such as the detection of myocardial ischemia.
适当使用标准 (AUC) 可帮助医疗保健专业人员做出有关程序和诊断测试的决策。在某些情况下,单一程序或测试存在多种 AUC。迄今为止,尚未评估多种 AUC 之间的一致性程度。
衡量美国心脏病学会基金会 (ACCF) AUC 和美国放射学院 (ACR) 适宜性标准之间的差异,以衡量核心肌灌注成像的适宜性。
设计、地点和参与者:在学术附属退伍军人事务医疗中心进行的回顾性队列研究。参与者是在 2010 年 12 月至 2011 年 7 月期间接受核心肌灌注成像的退伍军人患者,由 ACCF 和 ACR 标准对其适宜性进行评分。分析于 2015 年 3 月进行。
主要结局是通过 κ 统计量衡量的适宜性类别判断的一致性。次要结局是比较两种评分方法的核心肌灌注成像结果和缺血频率在适宜性类别中的差异。
在 ACCF AUC 的 67 项适应证中,35 项(52.2%)无法与 ACR 评分相匹配,18 项(26.9%)具有相同的适宜性类别,14 项(20.9%)在适宜性方面存在分歧。研究队列包括 592 人。他们的平均(SD)年龄为 62.6(9.4)岁,570 名(592 名中的 96.2%)为男性。将其应用于患者队列时,111 名患者(18.8%)无法与 ACR 评分相匹配,349 名患者(59.0%)的 ACR 和 ACCF 方法具有相同的适宜性类别,而 132 名患者(22.3%)的适宜性类别存在分歧。总体而言,两种方法的适宜性判断一致性较差(κ=0.34,P<.001)。在 ACCF AUC 评定为“不适当”的 39 名患者中(1 名[2.6%]),很少发现缺血,而在 ACR 适宜性标准评定为“通常不适当”的 80 名患者中(14 名[17.5%]),缺血更为常见。
评估高级成像测试适宜性的方法之间可能存在很大差异。方法上的差异可能转化为临床上相关的结果差异,例如心肌缺血的检测。