Limits...
Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence.

Underwood SR, Anagnostopoulos C, Cerqueira M, Ell PJ, Flint EJ, Harbinson M, Kelion AD, Al-Mohammad A, Prvulovich EM, Shaw LJ, Tweddel AC, British Cardiac SocietyBritish Nuclear Cardiology SocietyBritish Nuclear Medicine SocietyRoyal College of Physicians of LondonRoyal College of Radiologis - Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging (2004)

Bottom Line: This in turn allows more appropriate utilisation of resources, with the potential for both improved clinical outcomes and greater cost-effectiveness.Evidence from modelling and observational studies supports the enhanced cost-effectiveness associated with MPS use.In patients presenting with stable or acute chest pain, strategies of investigation involving MPS are more cost-effective than those not using the technique.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Imperial College London, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK. r.underwood@imperial.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
This review summarises the evidence for the role of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. It is the product of a consensus conference organised by the British Cardiac Society, the British Nuclear Cardiology Society and the British Nuclear Medicine Society and is endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Radiologists. It was used to inform the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence in their appraisal of MPS in patients with chest pain and myocardial infarction. MPS is a well-established, non-invasive imaging technique with a large body of evidence to support its effectiveness in the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction. It is more accurate than the exercise ECG in detecting myocardial ischaemia and it is the single most powerful technique for predicting future coronary events. The high diagnostic accuracy of MPS allows reliable risk stratification and guides the selection of patients for further interventions, such as revascularisation. This in turn allows more appropriate utilisation of resources, with the potential for both improved clinical outcomes and greater cost-effectiveness. Evidence from modelling and observational studies supports the enhanced cost-effectiveness associated with MPS use. In patients presenting with stable or acute chest pain, strategies of investigation involving MPS are more cost-effective than those not using the technique. MPS also has particular advantages over alternative techniques in the management of a number of patient subgroups, including women, the elderly and those with diabetes, and its use will have a favourable impact on cost-effectiveness in these groups. MPS is already an integral part of many clinical guidelines for the investigation and management of angina and myocardial infarction. However, the technique is underutilised in the UK, as judged by the inappropriately long waiting times and by comparison with the numbers of revascularisations and coronary angiograms performed. Furthermore, MPS activity levels in this country fall far short of those in comparable European countries, with about half as many scans being undertaken per year. Currently, the number of MPS studies performed annually in the UK is 1,200/million population/year. We estimate the real need to be 4,000/million/year. The current average waiting time is 20 weeks and we recommend that clinically appropriate upper limits of waiting time are 6 weeks for routine studies and 1 week for urgent studies.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Numbers of MPS studies in selected countries in 1994 (except where stated). (Adapted from references [280] and [290])
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2562441&req=5

Fig9: Numbers of MPS studies in selected countries in 1994 (except where stated). (Adapted from references [280] and [290])

Mentions: Comparative data from 1994 show that the UK figure at this time, 560 pm, was significantly below the European average of 2,200 pm and very small compared with a comparable US figure of 10,000 pm (Fig. 9) [280].Fig. 9


Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence.

Underwood SR, Anagnostopoulos C, Cerqueira M, Ell PJ, Flint EJ, Harbinson M, Kelion AD, Al-Mohammad A, Prvulovich EM, Shaw LJ, Tweddel AC, British Cardiac SocietyBritish Nuclear Cardiology SocietyBritish Nuclear Medicine SocietyRoyal College of Physicians of LondonRoyal College of Radiologis - Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging (2004)

Numbers of MPS studies in selected countries in 1994 (except where stated). (Adapted from references [280] and [290])
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2562441&req=5

Fig9: Numbers of MPS studies in selected countries in 1994 (except where stated). (Adapted from references [280] and [290])
Mentions: Comparative data from 1994 show that the UK figure at this time, 560 pm, was significantly below the European average of 2,200 pm and very small compared with a comparable US figure of 10,000 pm (Fig. 9) [280].Fig. 9

Bottom Line: This in turn allows more appropriate utilisation of resources, with the potential for both improved clinical outcomes and greater cost-effectiveness.Evidence from modelling and observational studies supports the enhanced cost-effectiveness associated with MPS use.In patients presenting with stable or acute chest pain, strategies of investigation involving MPS are more cost-effective than those not using the technique.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Imperial College London, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK. r.underwood@imperial.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
This review summarises the evidence for the role of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. It is the product of a consensus conference organised by the British Cardiac Society, the British Nuclear Cardiology Society and the British Nuclear Medicine Society and is endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Radiologists. It was used to inform the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence in their appraisal of MPS in patients with chest pain and myocardial infarction. MPS is a well-established, non-invasive imaging technique with a large body of evidence to support its effectiveness in the diagnosis and management of angina and myocardial infarction. It is more accurate than the exercise ECG in detecting myocardial ischaemia and it is the single most powerful technique for predicting future coronary events. The high diagnostic accuracy of MPS allows reliable risk stratification and guides the selection of patients for further interventions, such as revascularisation. This in turn allows more appropriate utilisation of resources, with the potential for both improved clinical outcomes and greater cost-effectiveness. Evidence from modelling and observational studies supports the enhanced cost-effectiveness associated with MPS use. In patients presenting with stable or acute chest pain, strategies of investigation involving MPS are more cost-effective than those not using the technique. MPS also has particular advantages over alternative techniques in the management of a number of patient subgroups, including women, the elderly and those with diabetes, and its use will have a favourable impact on cost-effectiveness in these groups. MPS is already an integral part of many clinical guidelines for the investigation and management of angina and myocardial infarction. However, the technique is underutilised in the UK, as judged by the inappropriately long waiting times and by comparison with the numbers of revascularisations and coronary angiograms performed. Furthermore, MPS activity levels in this country fall far short of those in comparable European countries, with about half as many scans being undertaken per year. Currently, the number of MPS studies performed annually in the UK is 1,200/million population/year. We estimate the real need to be 4,000/million/year. The current average waiting time is 20 weeks and we recommend that clinically appropriate upper limits of waiting time are 6 weeks for routine studies and 1 week for urgent studies.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus