Cardiac positron emission tomography and other modalities for coronary artery disease assessment: A snapshot from the medicare data.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Nuclear Cardiology Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1016/j.nuclcard.2024.102030
Mouaz Al-Mallah, Maria Alwan, Mahmoud Al Rifai, Ahmed Sayed
{"title":"Cardiac positron emission tomography and other modalities for coronary artery disease assessment: A snapshot from the medicare data.","authors":"Mouaz Al-Mallah, Maria Alwan, Mahmoud Al Rifai, Ahmed Sayed","doi":"10.1016/j.nuclcard.2024.102030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Positron emission tomography (PET) is an important tool for assessing coronary artery disease (CAD), but its widespread utilization is limited due to various factors, including limited local champion availability. This study aims to compare the frequency of PET procedures and their interpreters with other common CAD assessment modalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using Medicare data, we examined the number of cardiac PET procedures billed and compared them with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and stress echocardiography. Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes were used to identify procedures. We calculated the total number of PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) procedures, the proportion of PET/CT and myocardial blood flow (MBF) assessments, and the median number of studies read per physician. We also analyzed the trends in the use of different CAD assessment modalities between 2018 and 2022. Descriptive statistics summarized the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 2022, Medicare billed for 212,106 PET MPI scans. SPECT was six times more frequent (1,343,519), whereas stress echocardiography (201,676) and CCTA (118,734) had similar or lower use. Stress MRI (3,932) was least used. Of the PET MPI scans, 46% were PET/CT, and 39% included MBF measurements. Cardiologists interpreted 86% of PET scans, with a median of 58 studies per reader; 23% interpreted ≤25 studies annually. SPECT had a median of 63 studies per reader, and CCTA, stress MRI, and stress echocardiography had medians of 27, 20, and 24, respectively. PET, CT, and MRI use increased from 2018 to 2022, whereas SPECT and stress echocardiography declined.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the Medicare population, radionuclide perfusion imaging (SPECT and PET) remained the preferred method for assessment of CAD, with SPECT being the most frequently used modality and PET being the second most frequently used modality for this application. However, PET/CT and MBF are underutilized, limiting diagnostic and prognostic capabilities. Efforts to enhance education and awareness of PET's advantages and to address barriers to its wider adoption are essential to maximize its clinical benefits and improve patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16476,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nuclear Cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nuclear Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclcard.2024.102030","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) is an important tool for assessing coronary artery disease (CAD), but its widespread utilization is limited due to various factors, including limited local champion availability. This study aims to compare the frequency of PET procedures and their interpreters with other common CAD assessment modalities.

Methods: Using Medicare data, we examined the number of cardiac PET procedures billed and compared them with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and stress echocardiography. Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes were used to identify procedures. We calculated the total number of PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) procedures, the proportion of PET/CT and myocardial blood flow (MBF) assessments, and the median number of studies read per physician. We also analyzed the trends in the use of different CAD assessment modalities between 2018 and 2022. Descriptive statistics summarized the data.

Results: In 2022, Medicare billed for 212,106 PET MPI scans. SPECT was six times more frequent (1,343,519), whereas stress echocardiography (201,676) and CCTA (118,734) had similar or lower use. Stress MRI (3,932) was least used. Of the PET MPI scans, 46% were PET/CT, and 39% included MBF measurements. Cardiologists interpreted 86% of PET scans, with a median of 58 studies per reader; 23% interpreted ≤25 studies annually. SPECT had a median of 63 studies per reader, and CCTA, stress MRI, and stress echocardiography had medians of 27, 20, and 24, respectively. PET, CT, and MRI use increased from 2018 to 2022, whereas SPECT and stress echocardiography declined.

Conclusion: In the Medicare population, radionuclide perfusion imaging (SPECT and PET) remained the preferred method for assessment of CAD, with SPECT being the most frequently used modality and PET being the second most frequently used modality for this application. However, PET/CT and MBF are underutilized, limiting diagnostic and prognostic capabilities. Efforts to enhance education and awareness of PET's advantages and to address barriers to its wider adoption are essential to maximize its clinical benefits and improve patient outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心脏正电子发射断层扫描和其他方式的 CAD 评估:医疗保险数据快照。
背景:正电子发射断层扫描(PET)是评估冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的重要工具,但由于当地冠军彩票登录有限等各种因素,其广泛使用受到限制。本研究旨在比较正电子发射计算机断层扫描(PET)与其他常见冠状动脉疾病评估方法的使用频率及其解释者:利用医疗保险数据,我们检查了心脏 PET 手术的收费数量,并将其与单光子发射计算机断层扫描 (SPECT)、冠状动脉计算机断层扫描 (CCTA)、负荷磁共振成像 (MRI) 和负荷超声心动图进行了比较。医疗保健通用程序编码系统 (HCPCS) 代码用于识别程序。我们计算了 PET MPI 程序的总数、PET/CT 和 MBF 评估的比例以及每位医生阅读研究报告的中位数。我们还分析了 2018 年至 2022 年不同 CAD 评估模式的使用趋势。描述性统计对数据进行了总结:2022 年,医疗保险对 212,106 次 PET MPI 扫描进行了收费。SPECT 的使用频率高出六倍(1,343,519 次),而负荷超声心动图(201,676 次)和 CCTA(118,734 次)的使用频率相近或更低。负荷磁共振成像(3,932 次)的使用率最低。在 PET MPI 扫描中,46% 是 PET/CT,39% 包括 MBF 测量。86%的 PET 扫描由心脏病专家解读,每位解读者的中位数为 58 项研究;23% 的解读者每年解读的研究次数少于 25 次。SPECT 每位读者的中位数为 63 项研究,CCTA、负荷 MRI 和负荷超声心动图的中位数分别为 27、20 和 24。从 2018 年到 2022 年,PET、CT 和 MRI 的使用量有所增加,而 SPECT 和负荷超声心动图的使用量有所下降:在医疗保险人群中,PET 是第二种最常用的 CAD 评估方式。然而,PET/CT 和 MBF 利用率不足,限制了诊断和预后能力。为了最大限度地发挥 PET 的临床优势并改善患者预后,必须努力加强教育,提高人们对 PET 优势的认识,并解决广泛采用 PET 的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
20.80%
发文量
249
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Nuclear Cardiology is the only journal in the world devoted to this dynamic and growing subspecialty. Physicians and technologists value the Journal not only for its peer-reviewed articles, but also for its timely discussions about the current and future role of nuclear cardiology. Original articles address all aspects of nuclear cardiology, including interpretation, diagnosis, imaging equipment, and use of radiopharmaceuticals. As the official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the Journal also brings readers the latest information emerging from the Society''s task forces and publishes guidelines and position papers as they are adopted.
期刊最新文献
Automatic motion correction for myocardial blood flow estimation improves diagnostic performance for coronary artery disease in 18F-flurpiridaz PET-MPI. Cardiac motion correction with a deep learning network for perfusion defect assessment in SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging. Rubidium-82 Dose Effects on Myocardial Blood Flow Measurements using a Digital PET-CT Scanner. Clinical Correlates of a Single-item Physical Activity Questionnaire among Patients Undergoing Stress SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging. Splenic switch-off to assess for vasodilator non-responsiveness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1