Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 324–330

Evaluation of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology appropriateness criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging in an Asian tertiary cardiac center

  • Angela S. Koh
  • Jennifer L. S. Flores
  • Felix Y. J. Keng
  • Ru San Tan
  • Terrance S. J. Chua
Original Article



Appropriate use criteria (AUC) for SPECT MPI have been published to address concern about the growth of cardiac imaging studies and the effective use of imaging, but there is no published data on its role outside the United States.


All consecutive patients referred to the MPI laboratory of our center from February 16 to June 19, 2009 were prospectively studied. Patients’ medical records and stress data were collected and all imaging results were recorded. Based on AUC, MPI studies were classified into appropriate, inappropriate, uncertain, or unclassified. MPI studies were classified on the basis of their results into normal or abnormal scans.


There were 1,623 patients (mean age 61 years ± 11, 61% males). Most common indications for SPECT were evaluation of ischemic equivalent for coronary artery disease (CAD), risk assessment post-revascularization, and preoperative evaluation for non-cardiac surgery. 10% of referrals were classified as inappropriate, 5% uncertain, and 3% unclassified. Women (48.4% vs 40.6% for men, P = .063) and asymptomatic patients (50.2% vs 14.3% for symptomatic, P < .001) had a higher proportion of inappropriate studies. The preoperative group had the highest proportion of inappropriate studies (59%). Appropriate referrals had a higher proportion of abnormal SPECT results than inappropriate referrals (40% vs 27%, OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.56-2.77, P < .001).


The pattern of referrals for SPECT MPI in an Asian center appears to vary from published reports in the United States. Preoperative evaluation for low-risk surgery appears to be the most common source of inappropriate referrals in our institution. Inappropriate referrals have a higher proportion of normal studies, but 27% were still reported as abnormal.


Myocardial perfusion imaging: SPECT diagnostic and prognostic application outcomes research cost-effectiveness 


  1. 1.
    Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, et al. ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 appropriate use criteria for cardiac radionuclide imaging: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Endorsed by the American College of Emergency Physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2201-29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chua T. Cardiac care in Singapore: The national heart centre experience. Am Heart Hosp J 2007;5:42-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ching CK, Keng F, Chua TS. Nuclear cardiology in Singapore: A review. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2004;33:461-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mehta R, Ward RP, Chandra S, Agarwal R, Williams KA. Evaluation of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology appropriateness criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:337-44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Beasley JW, et al. ACC/AHA Guidelines for Exercise Testing. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Exercise Testing). J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:260-311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibbons RJ, Balady GJ, Bricker JT, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: Summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:1531-40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979;300:1350-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Third R. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation 2002;106:3143-421.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clinical Practice Guidelines on Lipids. Singapore Ministry of Health Clinical Practice Guidelines 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, et al. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:849-57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibbons RJ. Finding value in imaging: What is appropriate? J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:178-85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    von Eiff EW, Massoro T, Voo YO, Ziegenbein R. Medical savings accounts: A core feature of Singapore’s health care system. Eur J Health Econ 2002;3:188-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gibbons RJ, Miller TD, Hodge D, et al. Application of appropriateness criteria to stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies and stress echocardiograms in an academic medical center. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1283-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hendel RC, Cerqueira M, Douglas PS, et al. A multicenter assessment of the use of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging with appropriateness criteria. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:156-62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holden JD. Hawthorne effects and research into professional practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2001;7:65-70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller TD, Askew JW. Appropriate use criteria another step forward but still a ways to go. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:163-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC Jr. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009;301:831-41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela S. Koh
    • 1
  • Jennifer L. S. Flores
    • 1
  • Felix Y. J. Keng
    • 1
  • Ru San Tan
    • 1
  • Terrance S. J. Chua
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CardiologyNational Heart CentreSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations