Abstract
Background
To evaluate the effectiveness of published nuclear cardiology training guidelines, the diagnostic accuracy of image interpretation by nuclear cardiology trianees was compared with that of experienced nuclear cardiologists.
Methods and Results
The accuracy of three experienced nuclear cardiologists and three trainees with level II experience following Society of Nuclear Medicine/American College of Cardiology/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology guidelines in the interpretation of 114 exercise 99mTc-labeled sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomographic imaging studies was evaluated. Studies were selected randomly and included patients with less than 5% likelihood of coronary artery disease, as well as patients with angiographically demonstrated single and multivessel disease. Studies were interpreted by each reader without knowledge of clinical or exercise data. Each reader classified perfusion as normal or abnormal. Accuracy was assessed according to sensitivity, normalcy rate, and predictive accuracy. In addition, the ability of experienced readers and trainees to identify abnormal perfusion in patients with multivessel disease was compared. Trainees had high accuracy, comparable to experienced readers for sensitivity, normalcy rate, and predictive accuracy, as well as the ability to identify abnormal perfusion in patients with multivessel disease. In all categories, experienced interpretors demonstrated a trend toward greater accuracy with less observer variability than did trainees.
Conclusion
Structured training in nuclear cardiology following Society of Nuclear Medicine/American College of Cardiology/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology guidelines during clinical cardiology fellowship is effective, and trainees possess the skills to interpret myocardial perfusion images accurately. Interpretive skills can be expected to improve further with experience.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cerqueira MD, Wackers FJ. The knowledge base for nuclear cardiology training. J Nucl Cardiol 1994;1:114–6.
Ritchie JL, Gibbons RJR, Johnson LL, et al. Task force 5: training in nuclear cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995;25:19–23.
DePuey EG, Borer JS, Brown KA, et al. Cardiovascular nuclear medicine training guidelines. J Nucl Med 1994;35:169–78.
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.
Ellestad MH. Stress testing principles and practice. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis, 1986:116–7.
Picano E, Lattanzi F, Orlandini A, Marini C, L'Abbate. Stress echocardiography and the human factor: the importance of being expert. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;17:666–9.
Kiat H, Maddahi J, Roy LT, et al. Comparison of technetium 99m methoxy isobutyl isonitrile and thallium 201 for evaluation of coronary artery disease by planar and tomographic methods. Am Heart J 1989;117:1–11.
Fintel DJ, Links JM, Brinker JA, Frank TL, Parker M, Becker LC. Improved diagnostic performance of exercise thallium-201 single photon emission computed tomography over planar imaging in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a receiver operating characteristic analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;13:600–12.
Wackers FJ, Bodenheimer M, Fleiss JL, et al. Factors affecting uniformity in interpretation of planar thallium-201 imaging in a multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;21:1064–74.
Taillefer R, Lambert R, Dupras G, et al. Eur J Nucl Med 1989; 15:280–6.
DePuey EG. Artifacts in SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. In: DePuey EG, Berman DS, Garcia EV, eds., Cardiac SPECt imaging. 1st ed. New York: Raven Press, 1995:169–200.
Wackers FJ. Artifacts in planar and SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. Am J Cardiac Imaging 1992;6:42–58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Golub, R.J., McClellan, J.R., Herman, S.D. et al. Effectiveness of nuclear cardiology training guidelines: A comparison of trainees with experienced readers. J Nucl Cardiol 3, 114–118 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-3581(96)90003-3
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-3581(96)90003-3