Skip to main content
Top
Published in: EJNMMI Research 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Original research

Referring physicians underestimate the extent of abnormalities in final reports from myocardial perfusion imaging

Authors: Elin Trägårdh, Peter Höglund, Mattias Ohlsson, Mattias Wieloch, Lars Edenbrandt

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

It is important that referring physicians and other treating clinicians properly understand the final reports from diagnostic tests. The aim of the study was to investigate whether referring physicians interpret a final report for a myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) test in the same way that the reading nuclear medicine physician intended.

Methods

After viewing final reports containing only typical clinical verbiage and images, physicians in nuclear medicine and referring physicians (physicians in cardiology, internal medicine, and general practitioners) independently classified 60 MPS tests for the presence versus absence of ischemia/infarction according to objective grades of 1–5 (1 = No ischemia/infarction, 2 = Probably no ischemia/infarction 3 = Equivocal, 4 = Probable ischemia/infarction, and 5 = Certain ischemia/infarction). When ischemia and/or infarction were thought to be present in the left ventricle, all physicians were also asked to mark the involved segments based on the 17-segment model.

Results

There was good diagnostic agreement between physicians in nuclear medicine and referring physicians when assessing the general presence versus absence of both ischemia and infarction (median squared kappa coefficient of 0.92 for both). However, when using the 17-segment model, compared to the physicians in nuclear medicine, 12 of 23 referring physicians underestimated the extent of ischemic area while 6 underestimated and 1 overestimated the extent of infarcted area.

Conclusions

Whereas referring physicians gain a good understanding of the general presence versus absence of ischemia and infarction from MPS test reports, they often underestimate the extent of any ischemic or infarcted areas. This may have adverse clinical consequences and thus the language in final reports from MPS tests might be further improved and standardized.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, Friedman J, Diamond GA: Exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients without known coronary artery disease: incremental prognostic value and use in risk stratification. Circulation 1996, 93: 905–914. 10.1161/01.CIR.93.5.905PubMedCrossRef Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, Friedman J, Diamond GA: Exercise myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients without known coronary artery disease: incremental prognostic value and use in risk stratification. Circulation 1996, 93: 905–914. 10.1161/01.CIR.93.5.905PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, Friedman J, Diamond GA: Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998, 97: 535–543. 10.1161/01.CIR.97.6.535PubMedCrossRef Hachamovitch R, Berman DS, Shaw LJ, Kiat H, Cohen I, Cabico JA, Friedman J, Diamond GA: Incremental prognostic value of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography for the prediction of cardiac death: differential stratification for risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction. Circulation 1998, 97: 535–543. 10.1161/01.CIR.97.6.535PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Iskander S, Iskandrian AE: Risk assessment using single-photon emission computed tomographic technetium-99 m sestamibi imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998, 32: 57–62. 10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00177-6PubMedCrossRef Iskander S, Iskandrian AE: Risk assessment using single-photon emission computed tomographic technetium-99 m sestamibi imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998, 32: 57–62. 10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00177-6PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Wackers FJ: Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Nuclear Medicine Laboratories (ICANL) position statement on standardization and optimization of nuclear cardiology reports. J Nucl Cardiol 2000, 7: 397–400. 10.1067/mnc.2000.108576PubMedCrossRef Wackers FJ: Intersocietal Commission for the Accreditation of Nuclear Medicine Laboratories (ICANL) position statement on standardization and optimization of nuclear cardiology reports. J Nucl Cardiol 2000, 7: 397–400. 10.1067/mnc.2000.108576PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gonzalez P, Canessa J, Massardo T: Formal aspects of the user-friendly nuclear cardiology report. J Nucl Cardiol 1998, 5: 365–366. 10.1016/S1071-3581(98)90138-6PubMedCrossRef Gonzalez P, Canessa J, Massardo T: Formal aspects of the user-friendly nuclear cardiology report. J Nucl Cardiol 1998, 5: 365–366. 10.1016/S1071-3581(98)90138-6PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hendel RC, Wackers FJ, Berman DS, Ficaro E, Depuey EG, Klein L, Cerqueira M: American society of nuclear cardiology consensus statement: reporting of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging studies. J Nucl Cardiol 2003, 10: 705–708. 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2003.08.004PubMedCrossRef Hendel RC, Wackers FJ, Berman DS, Ficaro E, Depuey EG, Klein L, Cerqueira M: American society of nuclear cardiology consensus statement: reporting of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging studies. J Nucl Cardiol 2003, 10: 705–708. 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2003.08.004PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tilkemeier PL, Cooke CD, Ficaro EP, Glover DK, Hansen CL, McCallister BD: American Society of Nuclear Cardiology information statement: Standardized reporting matrix for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2006, 13: e157-e171. 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.08.014PubMedCrossRef Tilkemeier PL, Cooke CD, Ficaro EP, Glover DK, Hansen CL, McCallister BD: American Society of Nuclear Cardiology information statement: Standardized reporting matrix for radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging. J Nucl Cardiol 2006, 13: e157-e171. 10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.08.014PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hendel RC, Wackers FJ, Berman DS, Ficaro E, DePuey EG, Klein L, Cerqueira M: American Society of Nuclear Cardiology consensus statement: Reporting of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging studies. J Nucl Cardiol 2006, 13: e152-e156.PubMedCrossRef Hendel RC, Wackers FJ, Berman DS, Ficaro E, DePuey EG, Klein L, Cerqueira M: American Society of Nuclear Cardiology consensus statement: Reporting of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging studies. J Nucl Cardiol 2006, 13: e152-e156.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Hesse B, Tagil K, Cuocolo A, Anagnostopoulos C, Bardies M, Bax J, Bengel F, SE Busemann, Davies G, Dondi M, et al.: EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005, 32: 855–897. 10.1007/s00259-005-1779-yPubMedCrossRef Hesse B, Tagil K, Cuocolo A, Anagnostopoulos C, Bardies M, Bax J, Bengel F, SE Busemann, Davies G, Dondi M, et al.: EANM/ESC procedural guidelines for myocardial perfusion imaging in nuclear cardiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005, 32: 855–897. 10.1007/s00259-005-1779-yPubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Cerqueira MD: The user-friendly nuclear cardiology report: what needs to be considered and what is included. J Nucl Cardiol 1996, 3: 350–355. 10.1016/S1071-3581(96)90096-3PubMedCrossRef Cerqueira MD: The user-friendly nuclear cardiology report: what needs to be considered and what is included. J Nucl Cardiol 1996, 3: 350–355. 10.1016/S1071-3581(96)90096-3PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Svensson E, Holm S: Separation of systematic and random differences in ordinal rating scales. Stat Med 1994, 13: 2437–2453. 10.1002/sim.4780132308PubMedCrossRef Svensson E, Holm S: Separation of systematic and random differences in ordinal rating scales. Stat Med 1994, 13: 2437–2453. 10.1002/sim.4780132308PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Svensson E, Starmark JE, Ekholm S, von Essen C, Johansson A: Analysis of interobserver disagreement in the assessment of subarachnoid blood and acute hydrocephalus on CT scans. Neurol Res 1996, 18: 487–494.PubMed Svensson E, Starmark JE, Ekholm S, von Essen C, Johansson A: Analysis of interobserver disagreement in the assessment of subarachnoid blood and acute hydrocephalus on CT scans. Neurol Res 1996, 18: 487–494.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Durkalski VL, Palesch YY, Lipsitz SR, Rust PF: Analysis of clustered matched-pair data. Stat Med 2003, 22: 2417–2428. 10.1002/sim.1438PubMedCrossRef Durkalski VL, Palesch YY, Lipsitz SR, Rust PF: Analysis of clustered matched-pair data. Stat Med 2003, 22: 2417–2428. 10.1002/sim.1438PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, Stone GW, Thomson LE, Friedman JD, Hayes SW, Cohen I, Germano G, Berman DS: Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J 2011, 32: 1012–1024. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq500PubMedCrossRef Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, Stone GW, Thomson LE, Friedman JD, Hayes SW, Cohen I, Germano G, Berman DS: Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J 2011, 32: 1012–1024. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq500PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Referring physicians underestimate the extent of abnormalities in final reports from myocardial perfusion imaging
Authors
Elin Trägårdh
Peter Höglund
Mattias Ohlsson
Mattias Wieloch
Lars Edenbrandt
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-2-27

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

EJNMMI Research 1/2012 Go to the issue