Gender disparity and the appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging

  • Aarti Gupta
  • Sarah V. Tsiaras
  • Shira I. Dunsiger
  • Peter L. Tilkemeier
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Appropriate use criteria (AUC) were developed to guide the use of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). While MPI use has grown exponentially, women remain under tested. Given this bias in testing, we sought to determine if gender disparity exists in tests categorized by appropriateness and the role of referral bias.

Methods

The AUC were applied to 314 consecutive MPI. Analysis of variance and chi-squared tests were used for analysis. Gender disparity was assessed using correlation matrices comparing baseline to gender reversed data.

Results

Of the 314 studies, 263 were appropriate, 34 inappropriate, and 17 uncertain. Women had 68% of inappropriate studies, and 82% of uncertain studies (P < .01). Cardiologists ordered more appropriate studies than primary care physicians (PCPs) in women (86% vs 71%, P = .04). Among studies ordered by cardiologists and PCPs, a higher percentage of studies were appropriate in men vs women (96% vs 86%, P = 0.05 and 88% vs 71% P = .003), respectively. Gender reversal demonstrates disparity in the AUC tool with 46 (15%) not correlating (P < .00001).

Conclusions

Comparing patient gender and ordering physician, the majority of inappropriate and uncertain studies were ordered in women by PCPs, indicating a continuing need for education among PCPs, particularly as the AUC apply to women.

Keywords

Myocardial perfusion imaging Diagnostic and prognostic application 

References

  1. 1.
    Lucas FL, Delorenzo MA, Siewers AE, Wennberg DE. Temporal trends in the utilization of diagnostic testing and treatment for cardiovascular disease in the United States, 1993–2001. Circulation 2006;113:374-9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hendel RC, Berman DS, Marcelo FDC, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:2201-29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shaw LJ, Miller DD, Romeis JC, Karal D, Younis LT, Chaitman BR. Gender differences in the noninvasive evaluation and management of patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:559-66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roger VL, Farkouh ME, Weston SA, Reeder GS, Jacobsen SJ, Zinsmeister AR. Sex differences in evaluation and outcome of unstable angina. JAMA 2000;283:646-52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shaw LJ, Peterson ED, Johnson LL. Noninvasive testing techniques for diagnosis and prognosis. In: Charney P, editor. Coronary Artery Disease in Women: What All Physicians Need to Know. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine; 1999. p. 327-50.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morise AP, Olson MB, Merz CN, et al. Validation of the accuracy of pretest and exercise test scores in women with a low prevalence of coronary disease: the NHBLI-sponsored women’s ischemia syndrome evaluation study. Am Heart J 2004;147:1085-92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mehta R, Ward RP, Chandra S, Agarwal R, Williams KA. Evaluation of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Society of Nuclear Medicine appropriateness criteria for SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2008;15:337-44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stata/SE 10 www.stata.com.
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Gibbons RJ, Askew JW, Hodge D, et al. Appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies: A quality improvement project. Circulation 2011;123:499-503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arrighi J. Educational initiatives for quality improvement projects can you teach an old dog new Tricks? Editorial. Circulation 2011;123:471-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aarti Gupta
    • 1
  • Sarah V. Tsiaras
    • 1
  • Shira I. Dunsiger
    • 2
  • Peter L. Tilkemeier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineMiriam and Rhode Island HospitalProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Centers for Behavioral and Preventive MedicineWarren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations