Coronary Artery Disease: Wolk MJ

Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA, Masoudi FA, Brindis RG, Beckman KJ, Chambers CE, Ferguson TB, Garcia MJ, Grover FL, Holmes DR, Klein LW, Limacher M, Mack MJ, Malenka DJ, Park MH, Ragosta M, Ritchie JL, Rose GA, Rosenberg AB, Shemin RJ, Weintraub WS, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Peterson ED. · Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #19127535 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00094, Anonymous00095, Anonymous00096, Anonymous00097, Anonymous00098, Anonymous00099, Anonymous00100, Anonymous00101. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #18342240 No free full text.

Abstract: 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.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Patel MR, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00125, Anonymous00126, Anonymous00127, Anonymous00128, Anonymous00129, Anonymous00130, Anonymous00131, Anonymous00132. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #18316491 links to  free full text

Abstract: 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.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00137, Anonymous00138, Anonymous00139, Anonymous00140, Anonymous00141, Anonymous00142, Anonymous00143, Anonymous00144, Anonymous00145, Anonymous00146. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #18314889 No free full text.

Abstract: 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.

O'Rourke RA, Brundage BH, Froelicher VF, Greenland P, Grundy SM, Hachamovitch R, Pohost GM, Shaw LJ, Weintraub WS, Winters WL, Forrester JS, Douglas PS, Faxon DP, Fisher JD, Gregoratos G, Hochman JS, Hutter AM, Kaul S, Wolk MJ. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #10880426 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, Heidenreich PA, Henkin RE, Pellikka PA, Pohost GM, Williams KA, Wolk MJ, Alagona P, Bateman TM, Cerqueira MD, Corbett JR, Dean AJ, Dehmer GJ, Goldbach P, Gordon L, Kushner FG, Kwong RY, Min J, Quinones MA, Ward RP, Yang SH, Allen J, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Patel M, Peterson E. · Appropriate Use Criteria for Radionuclide Imaging Writing Group-Midwest Heart Specialists, Winfield, IL, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #19451357 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical scenarios where cardiac radionuclide imaging (RNI) is frequently considered. This document is a revision of the original Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (SPECT MPI) Appropriateness Criteria, published 4 years earlier, written to reflect changes in test utilization and new clinical data, and to clarify RNI use where omissions or lack of clarity existed in the original criteria. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine appropriate use criteria (AUC) on a frequent basis. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Sixty-seven clinical scenarios were developed by a writing group and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9 to designate appropriate use, inappropriate use, or uncertain use. In general, use of cardiac RNI for diagnosis and risk assessment in intermediate- and high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while testing in low-risk patients, routine repeat testing, and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. Additionally, use for perioperative testing was found to be inappropriate except for high selected groups of patients. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making, test performance, and reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.