Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Reducing Radiation Exposure from Cardiovascular Imaging Through Implementation of Appropriate Use Criteria

  • Cardiac Nuclear Imaging (RJ Gropler, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cardiac imaging is a key instrument in the evaluation of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Although clear benefits accompany the use of nuclear cardiology and cardiac CT techniques, is well-documented in the medical literature, there is growing concern about the risk related to exposure to ionizing radiation. Although the true impact of low-level ionizing radiation is often poorly characterized, clinicians and medical organizations encourage minimization of exposure, with a focus on a balance between benefits and risks of cardiac imaging procedures. The appropriate use criteria (AUC), developed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, and multiple other societies, provide guidance regarding test utilization and assist in optimizing an approach involving the right test for the right patient at the right time. By reducing inappropriate use of cardiac CT and radionuclide imaging, exposure to unnecessary ionizing radiation may be minimized. Evaluation of appropriateness allows for practitioners to monitor their performance and serves to provide focus for educational efforts related to inappropriate test indications. Several key areas, including test layering and the use of serial imaging in asymptomatic patients likely contribute to inappropriate use and increased radiation exposure. Therefore, the use of AUC, in conjunction with other radiation dose reduction efforts, promotes significant improvement in patient safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:•• Of major importance

  1. Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Adams RJ, Berry JD, Brown TM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(4):e18–e209. Epub 2010/12/17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, Carabello B, Dehmer GJ, Eagle KA, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography). Developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(6):1756–824. Epub 1999/05/20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamon M, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Malagutti P, Agostoni P, Morello R, Valgimigli M. Diagnostic performance of multislice spiral computed tomography of coronary arteries as compared with conventional invasive coronary angiography: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(9):1896–910. Epub 2006/11/07.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sirol M, Sanz J, Henry P, Rymer R, Leber A. Evaluation of 64-slice MDCT in the real world of cardiology: a comparison with conventional coronary angiography. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2009;102(5):433–9. Epub 2009/06/13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abdulla J, Abildstrom SZ, Gotzsche O, Christensen E, Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C. 64-multislice detector computed tomography coronary angiography as potential alternative to conventional coronary angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Hear J. 2007;28(24):3042–50. Epub 2007/11/06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. •• Fazel R, Dilsizian V, Einstein AJ, Ficaro EP, Henzlova M, Shaw LJ. Strategies for defining an optimal risk-benefit ratio for stress myocardial perfusion SPECT. Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2011;18(3):385–92. Epub 2011/03/25. This document outlines a practical approach to applying the concepts of radiation exposure by targeting MPI utilization to priority populations with appropriate indications.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Measurements NCoRPa. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. 1987.

  8. Measurements NCoRPa. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States. 2009.

  9. Chen J, Einstein AJ, Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Ross JS, et al. Cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation from diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac imaging procedures: a population-based analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(9):702–11. Epub 2010/07/14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology. 2009;251(1):6–12. Epub 2009/04/01.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fazel R, Shaw LJ. Radiation exposure from radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging: concerns and solutions. Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2011;18(4):562–5. Epub 2011/06/04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Samartzis D, Nishi N, Hayashi M, Cologne J, Cullings HM, Kodama K, et al. Exposure to ionizing radiation and development of bone sarcoma: new insights based on atomic-bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. J Bone Joint Surg Am Volume. 2011;93(11):1008–15. Epub 2011/10/11.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Douple EB, Mabuchi K, Cullings HM, Preston DL, Kodama K, Shimizu Y, et al. Long-term radiation-related health effects in a unique human population: lessons learned from the atomic bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2011;5 Suppl 1:S122–33. Epub 2011/03/22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Iwanaga M, Hsu WL, Soda M, Takasaki Y, Tawara M, Joh T, et al. Risk of myelodysplastic syndromes in people exposed to ionizing radiation: a retrospective cohort study of Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2011;29(4):428–34. Epub 2010/12/15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Richardson D, Sugiyama H, Nishi N, Sakata R, Shimizu Y, Grant EJ, et al. Ionizing radiation and leukemia mortality among Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors, 1950–2000. Radiat Res. 2009;172(3):368–82. Epub 2009/08/28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Eisenberg MJ, Afilalo J, Lawler PR, Abrahamowicz M, Richard H, Pilote L. Cancer risk related to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging in patients after acute myocardial infarction. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 2011;183(4):430–6. Epub 2011/02/18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berrington de Gonzalez A, Kim KP, Smith-Bindman R, McAreavey D. Myocardial perfusion scans: projected population cancer risks from current levels of use in the United States. Circulation. 2010;122(23):2403–10. Epub 2010/11/26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lawler PR, Afilalo J, Eisenberg MJ, Pilote L. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac imaging among patients with myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2012;109(1):31–5. Epub 2011/10/04.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Administration USFaD. Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging. 2010; Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RadiationDoseReduction/UCM200087.pdf.

  20. Gibbons RJ. Finding value in imaging: what is appropriate? Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2008;15(2):178–85. Epub 2008/03/29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Patel MR, Spertus JA, Brindis RG, Hendel RC, Douglas PS, Peterson ED, et al. ACCF proposed method for evaluating the appropriateness of cardiovascular imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(8):1606–13. Epub 2005/10/18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, et al. ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology endorsed by the American Heart Association. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(8):1587–605. Epub 2005/10/18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. •• Hendel RC, Berman DS, Di Carli MF, Heidenreich PA, Henkin RE, Pellikka PA, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(23):2201–29. Epub 2009/06/06. This critical guidance document is the most current version of the appropriate use criteria for radionuclide imaging, updating the 2005 publication. This serves as the basis for all MPI appropriate use categorization.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, Poon M, Carr JC, Gerstad NA, et al. ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(7):1475–97. Epub 2006/10/03.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, Mark D, Min J, O'Gara P, et al. ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(22):1864–94. Epub 2010/11/20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gibbons RJ, Miller TD, Hodge D, Urban L, Araoz PA, Pellikka P, 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(13):1283–9. Epub 2008/03/29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gibbons RJ, Askew JW, Hodge D, Miller TD. Temporal trends in compliance with appropriateness criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies in an academic medical center. Am Hear J. 2010;159(3):484–9. Epub 2010/03/10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. •• Hendel RC, Cerqueira M, Douglas PS, Caruth KC, Allen JM, Jensen NC, 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(2):156–62. Epub 2010/02/02. This article describes a multicenter, prospective evaluation of appropriate use of SPECT MPI, demonstrating that this type of evaluation is feasible. It also provides a potential benchmark for inappropriate testing rates and delineates the most frequent reasons for inappropriate testing.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Carryer DJ, Hodge DO, Miller TD, Askew JW, Gibbons RJ. Application of appropriateness criteria to stress single photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies: a comparison of the 2009 revised appropriateness criteria to the 2005 original criteria. Am Hear J. 2010;160(2):244–9. Epub 2010/08/10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Koh AS, Flores JL, Keng FY, Tan RS, Chua TS. 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. Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2011;18(2):324–30. Epub 2010/11/26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gupta A, Tsiaras SV, Dunsiger SI, Tilkemeier PL. Gender disparity and the appropriateness of myocardial perfusion imaging. Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2011;18(4):588–94. Epub 2011/04/26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gholamrezanezhad A, Shirafkan A, Mirpour S, Rayatnavaz M, Alborzi A, Mogharrabi M, et al. Appropriateness of referrals for single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI) in a developing community: a comparison between 2005 and 2009 versions of ACCF/ASNC appropriateness criteria. Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2011;18(6):1044–52. Epub 2011/08/06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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. Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2008;15(3):337–44. Epub 2008/06/03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Murphy MK, Brady TJ, Nasir K, Gazelle GS, Bamberg F, Truong QA, et al. Appropriateness and utilization of cardiac CT: implications for development of future criteria. Journal of nuclear cardiology: official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2010;17(5):881–9. Epub 2010/06/17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Einstein AJ, Weiner SD, Bernheim A, Kulon M, Bokhari S, Johnson LL, et al. Multiple testing, cumulative radiation dose, and clinical indications in patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 2010;304(19):2137–44. Epub 2010/11/17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Carryer DJ, Askew JW, Hodge DO, Miller TD, Gibbons RJ. The timing and impact of follow-up studies after normal stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(5):520–6. Epub 2010/07/16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shah BR, Cowper PA, O'Brien SM, Jensen N, Drawz M, Patel MR, et al. Patterns of cardiac stress testing after revascularization in community practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(16):1328–34. Epub 2010/10/05.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Beller GA. Stress testing after coronary revascularization too much, too soon. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(16):1335–7. Epub 2010/10/05.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Douglas P, Iskandrian AE, Krumholz HM, Gillam L, Hendel R, Jollis J, et al. Achieving quality in cardiovascular imaging: proceedings from the American College of Cardiology-Duke University Medical Center Think Tank on Quality in Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(10):2141–51. Epub 2006/11/23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nelson KH, Willens HJ, Hendel RC. Utilization of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging in two health care systems: assessment with the 2009 ACCF/ASNC/AHA appropriateness use criteria. Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. 2011. Epub 2011/11/03.

  41. “Imaging in FOCUS". 2012 [01/20/2012]; Available from: www.cardiosource.org/…/33B076A079AF415A875E11AC1424216.

  42. Bonow RO, Douglas PS, Buxton AE, Cohen DJ, Curtis JP, Delong E, et al. ACCF/AHA methodology for the development of quality measures for cardiovascular technology: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(14):1517–38. Epub 2011/09/02.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Laskey WK, Feinendegen LE, Neumann RD, Dilsizian V. Low-level ionizing radiation from noninvasive cardiac imaging: can we extrapolate estimated risks from epidemiologic data to the clinical setting? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(5):517–24. Epub 2010/05/15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

J. Dawson Dowe: none; R. C. Hendel: consultant to United Health Group.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert C. Hendel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dowe, J.D., Hendel, R.C. Reducing Radiation Exposure from Cardiovascular Imaging Through Implementation of Appropriate Use Criteria. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep 5, 179–187 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-012-9133-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12410-012-9133-9

Keywords

Navigation