ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2015
Clinical utility of inappropriate positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging: test results and cardiovascular events.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes after inappropriate nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging: A meta-analysis.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Review
- Review of cardiovascular imaging in the journal of nuclear cardiology in 2015. Part 1 of 2: Plaque imaging, positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Review
- Downstream clinical consequences of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance based on appropriate use criteria.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2015Article
- Metrics of quality care in veterans: correlation between primary-care performance measures and inappropriate myocardial perfusion imaging.Clinical cardiology · 2015Article
- The value and appropriateness of positron emission tomography: an evolving tale.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAppropriate use criteria for myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) were developed to categorize scenarios where MPI might be beneficial (appropriate) or not (inappropriate). Few investigations have evaluated the clinical utility of this categorization strategy, particularly with positron emission tomography (PET) MPI. METHODS AND
resultsWe conducted this retrospective cohort investigation in a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center, on predominantly male subjects who underwent PET-MPI. We correlated appropriateness to test result and cardiovascular events. Of 521 subjects, 414 (79.5%) were appropriate, 54 (10.4%) were uncertain, and 53 (10.2%) were inappropriate. PET-MPI was abnormal more often when appropriate or uncertain (28% and 34.6%, respectively, vs 7.7% for inappropriate, P = .003). Among abnormal inappropriate tests, none detected occult ischemia. By Cox regression, summed difference score ≥5 (HR 5.06, 95% CI 2.72-9.44) and an abnormal test result (HR 4.48, 95% CI 2.19-9.14) were associated with higher likelihood of catheterization. Log-rank analysis demonstrated similar likelihood of catheterization when comparing abnormal vs normal test result (P < .0001) and between appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate tests (P = .024).
conclusionsInappropriate PET-MPI was rarely abnormal, associated with low catheterization rates, and failed to detect occult ischemia for any subjects. The clinical utility of inappropriate PET-MPI is negligible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25084975What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.