Evaluation of Coronary CTA Appropriateness Criteria® in an Academic Medical Center

John A. Miller, Eugenia Raichlin, Eric E. Williamson, Robert B. McCully, Patricia A. Pellikka, David O. Hodge, Todd D. Miller, Raymond J. Gibbons, Philip A. Araoz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate published appropriateness criteria for CT angiography (CTA) at the authors' academic medical center. Methods: Two observers independently reviewed the medical records of 251 patients who had undergone dual-source coronary CTA from June 1 to December 31, 2007. Patients were assigned to indications from 1 of 7 tables from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Agreement between the two observers was assessed using κ statistics. Disagreements were resolved by consensus panel. The final numbers of appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate, and not classifiable indications were recorded. Results: Indications for testing were classified as appropriate in 69 patients (27%), inappropriate in 42 patients (17%), and uncertain in 25 patients (10%). One hundred fifteen indications for coronary CTA (46%) were not classifiable. Analysis of interobserver variability for overall appropriateness yielded a κ value of 0.31, which was considered to indicate fair agreement. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a significant proportion (46%) of the coronary CTA studies performed at the authors' institution are for indications that are not covered by the published appropriateness criteria. Modifications to these criteria could help decrease the number of studies that are not classifiable. Physician education could decrease the number of inappropriate studies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)125-131
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Coronary Angiography
Observer Variation
Medical Records
Computed Tomography Angiography
Physicians
Education

Keywords

  • CT
  • Coronary artery disease
  • evidence-based medicine
  • guidelines as a topic
  • utilization
  • x-ray

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Miller, J. A., Raichlin, E., Williamson, E. E., McCully, R. B., Pellikka, P. A., Hodge, D. O., ... Araoz, P. A. (2010). Evaluation of Coronary CTA Appropriateness Criteria® in an Academic Medical Center. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 7(2), 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.08.013

Evaluation of Coronary CTA Appropriateness Criteria® in an Academic Medical Center. / Miller, John A.; Raichlin, Eugenia; Williamson, Eric E.; McCully, Robert B.; Pellikka, Patricia A.; Hodge, David O.; Miller, Todd D.; Gibbons, Raymond J.; Araoz, Philip A.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2010, p. 125-131.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Miller, JA, Raichlin, E, Williamson, EE, McCully, RB, Pellikka, PA, Hodge, DO, Miller, TD, Gibbons, RJ & Araoz, PA 2010, 'Evaluation of Coronary CTA Appropriateness Criteria® in an Academic Medical Center', Journal of the American College of Radiology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2009.08.013
Miller, John A. ; Raichlin, Eugenia ; Williamson, Eric E. ; McCully, Robert B. ; Pellikka, Patricia A. ; Hodge, David O. ; Miller, Todd D. ; Gibbons, Raymond J. ; Araoz, Philip A. / Evaluation of Coronary CTA Appropriateness Criteria® in an Academic Medical Center. In: Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2010 ; Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 125-131.
@article{898c69cf06a2445786577ff39d55092b,
title = "Evaluation of Coronary CTA Appropriateness Criteria{\circledR} in an Academic Medical Center",
abstract = "Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate published appropriateness criteria for CT angiography (CTA) at the authors' academic medical center. Methods: Two observers independently reviewed the medical records of 251 patients who had undergone dual-source coronary CTA from June 1 to December 31, 2007. Patients were assigned to indications from 1 of 7 tables from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and ACR Appropriateness Criteria{\circledR}. Agreement between the two observers was assessed using κ statistics. Disagreements were resolved by consensus panel. The final numbers of appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate, and not classifiable indications were recorded. Results: Indications for testing were classified as appropriate in 69 patients (27{\%}), inappropriate in 42 patients (17{\%}), and uncertain in 25 patients (10{\%}). One hundred fifteen indications for coronary CTA (46{\%}) were not classifiable. Analysis of interobserver variability for overall appropriateness yielded a κ value of 0.31, which was considered to indicate fair agreement. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a significant proportion (46{\%}) of the coronary CTA studies performed at the authors' institution are for indications that are not covered by the published appropriateness criteria. Modifications to these criteria could help decrease the number of studies that are not classifiable. Physician education could decrease the number of inappropriate studies.",
keywords = "CT, Coronary artery disease, evidence-based medicine, guidelines as a topic, utilization, x-ray",
author = "Miller, {John A.} and Eugenia Raichlin and Williamson, {Eric E.} and McCully, {Robert B.} and Pellikka, {Patricia A.} and Hodge, {David O.} and Miller, {Todd D.} and Gibbons, {Raymond J.} and Araoz, {Philip A.}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2009.08.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "125--131",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of Coronary CTA Appropriateness Criteria® in an Academic Medical Center

AU - Miller, John A.

AU - Raichlin, Eugenia

AU - Williamson, Eric E.

AU - McCully, Robert B.

AU - Pellikka, Patricia A.

AU - Hodge, David O.

AU - Miller, Todd D.

AU - Gibbons, Raymond J.

AU - Araoz, Philip A.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate published appropriateness criteria for CT angiography (CTA) at the authors' academic medical center. Methods: Two observers independently reviewed the medical records of 251 patients who had undergone dual-source coronary CTA from June 1 to December 31, 2007. Patients were assigned to indications from 1 of 7 tables from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Agreement between the two observers was assessed using κ statistics. Disagreements were resolved by consensus panel. The final numbers of appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate, and not classifiable indications were recorded. Results: Indications for testing were classified as appropriate in 69 patients (27%), inappropriate in 42 patients (17%), and uncertain in 25 patients (10%). One hundred fifteen indications for coronary CTA (46%) were not classifiable. Analysis of interobserver variability for overall appropriateness yielded a κ value of 0.31, which was considered to indicate fair agreement. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a significant proportion (46%) of the coronary CTA studies performed at the authors' institution are for indications that are not covered by the published appropriateness criteria. Modifications to these criteria could help decrease the number of studies that are not classifiable. Physician education could decrease the number of inappropriate studies.

AB - Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate published appropriateness criteria for CT angiography (CTA) at the authors' academic medical center. Methods: Two observers independently reviewed the medical records of 251 patients who had undergone dual-source coronary CTA from June 1 to December 31, 2007. Patients were assigned to indications from 1 of 7 tables from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and ACR Appropriateness Criteria®. Agreement between the two observers was assessed using κ statistics. Disagreements were resolved by consensus panel. The final numbers of appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate, and not classifiable indications were recorded. Results: Indications for testing were classified as appropriate in 69 patients (27%), inappropriate in 42 patients (17%), and uncertain in 25 patients (10%). One hundred fifteen indications for coronary CTA (46%) were not classifiable. Analysis of interobserver variability for overall appropriateness yielded a κ value of 0.31, which was considered to indicate fair agreement. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a significant proportion (46%) of the coronary CTA studies performed at the authors' institution are for indications that are not covered by the published appropriateness criteria. Modifications to these criteria could help decrease the number of studies that are not classifiable. Physician education could decrease the number of inappropriate studies.

KW - CT

KW - Coronary artery disease

KW - evidence-based medicine

KW - guidelines as a topic

KW - utilization

KW - x-ray

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928096408&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928096408&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.08.013

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.08.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 20142087

AN - SCOPUS:84928096408

VL - 7

SP - 125

EP - 131

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 2

ER -