Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of the cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) prescriptions according to the “2010-Appropriate-Use-Criteria-for-Cardiac-Computed-Tomography-Angiography” (AUCCTA) and “Clinical-indication-for-CCTA” (CICCTA) among different specialities (Cardiologist [CA], General Practitioner [GP], Other Specialists [OS]) and prescribers’ age. Materials and methods: This is a single-centre, single-arm, cohort study. We prospectively enrolled 815 patients (October 2012–May 2019) who underwent a radiological outpatient visit, before CCTA examination. Prescriptions to the examination were categorized as follows: Appropriate (A), Uncertain (U) and Inappropriate (Ina), according to AUCCTA and I, II, III and Inv for CICCTA. This categorization was stratified according to CA, GP and OS and prescribers’ age. CCTA was performed in patients whom indications belong to A/U categories. Results: Eight hundred and fifteen CCTA prescriptions were analysed. An yearly increase in prescriptions was found in the eight-year observational period (2012/2019 projection: 72 vs 223). Considering AUCCTA, indication A was 540/815 (66.3%), indication U was 113/815 (13.9%) and Ina accounted for 162/815 (19.9%; 128/162 [79.0%] indications with stress test listed as criterium of inappropriateness). Only U indications decreased over years (p = 0.003). Regarding CICCTA, 501/815 (61.5%) patients were categorized as I, 144/815 (17.7%) as II, 102/815 (12.5%) as III, 67/815 (8.2%) were INV and 1/815 (0.1%) were non-classified. Clinical referrals were CA in 495/786 (63.0%), GPs in 57/786 (7.3%) GP and OS in 234/786 (29.8%) [p < 0.01]. No statistically significant differences were observed in the appropriateness among different specialty physicians. Younger doctors have a lower chance to not meet A indication (OR 0.98 [CI 95% 0.96–0.99]; p = 0.003). Conclusion: Our study highlights the importance of a pre-radiological visit prior to CCTA, which prevented execution of 19.9% of inappropriate examinations. Age of prescribers had an impact on appropriateness, with younger doctors having a lower chance to not meet A indication.
Radiological outpatient’ visits to avoid inappropriate cardiac CT examinations: an 8-year experience report / De Rubeis, G.; Marchitelli, L.; Spano, G.; Catapano, F.; Cilia, F.; Galea, N.; Carbone, I.; Catalano, C.; Francone, M.. - In: LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA. - ISSN 0033-8362. - (2020), pp. 1-7. [10.1007/s11547-020-01246-3]
Radiological outpatient’ visits to avoid inappropriate cardiac CT examinations: an 8-year experience report
De Rubeis G.Primo
;Marchitelli L.Secondo
;Spano G.;Catapano F.;Cilia F.;Galea N.;Carbone I.;Catalano C.Penultimo
;Francone M.
Ultimo
2020
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of the cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) prescriptions according to the “2010-Appropriate-Use-Criteria-for-Cardiac-Computed-Tomography-Angiography” (AUCCTA) and “Clinical-indication-for-CCTA” (CICCTA) among different specialities (Cardiologist [CA], General Practitioner [GP], Other Specialists [OS]) and prescribers’ age. Materials and methods: This is a single-centre, single-arm, cohort study. We prospectively enrolled 815 patients (October 2012–May 2019) who underwent a radiological outpatient visit, before CCTA examination. Prescriptions to the examination were categorized as follows: Appropriate (A), Uncertain (U) and Inappropriate (Ina), according to AUCCTA and I, II, III and Inv for CICCTA. This categorization was stratified according to CA, GP and OS and prescribers’ age. CCTA was performed in patients whom indications belong to A/U categories. Results: Eight hundred and fifteen CCTA prescriptions were analysed. An yearly increase in prescriptions was found in the eight-year observational period (2012/2019 projection: 72 vs 223). Considering AUCCTA, indication A was 540/815 (66.3%), indication U was 113/815 (13.9%) and Ina accounted for 162/815 (19.9%; 128/162 [79.0%] indications with stress test listed as criterium of inappropriateness). Only U indications decreased over years (p = 0.003). Regarding CICCTA, 501/815 (61.5%) patients were categorized as I, 144/815 (17.7%) as II, 102/815 (12.5%) as III, 67/815 (8.2%) were INV and 1/815 (0.1%) were non-classified. Clinical referrals were CA in 495/786 (63.0%), GPs in 57/786 (7.3%) GP and OS in 234/786 (29.8%) [p < 0.01]. No statistically significant differences were observed in the appropriateness among different specialty physicians. Younger doctors have a lower chance to not meet A indication (OR 0.98 [CI 95% 0.96–0.99]; p = 0.003). Conclusion: Our study highlights the importance of a pre-radiological visit prior to CCTA, which prevented execution of 19.9% of inappropriate examinations. Age of prescribers had an impact on appropriateness, with younger doctors having a lower chance to not meet A indication.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
De-Rubeis_Radiological_2020.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
986.65 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
986.65 kB | Adobe PDF | Contatta l'autore |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.