12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Risks of Inappropriateness in Cardiac Imaging

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The immense clinical and scientific benefits of cardiovascular imaging are well-established, but are also true that 30 to 50% of all examinations are partially or totally inappropriate. Marketing messages, high patient demand and defensive medicine, lead to the vicious circle of the so-called Ulysses syndrome. Mr. Ulysses, a typical middle-aged “worried-well” asymptomatic subject with an A-type coronary personality, a heavy (opium) smoker, leading a stressful life, would be advised to have a cardiological check-up after 10 years of war. After a long journey across imaging laboratories, he will have stress echo, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, PET-CT, 64-slice CT, and adenosine-MRI performed, with a cumulative cost of >100 times a simple exercise-electrocardiography test and a cumulative radiation dose of >4,000 chest x-rays, with a cancer risk of 1 in 100. Ulysses is tired of useless examinations, exorbitant costs. unaffordable even by the richest society, and unacceptable risks.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary: The Task Force on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris of the European Society of Cardiology.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR): Consensus Panel report.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks.

              To determine the awareness level concerning radiation dose and possible risks associated with computed tomographic (CT) scans among patients, emergency department (ED) physicians, and radiologists. Adult patients seen in the ED of a U.S. academic medical center during a 2-week period with mild to moderate abdominopelvic or flank pain and who underwent CT were surveyed after acquisition of the CT scan. Patients were asked whether or not they were informed about the risks, benefits, and radiation dose of the CT scan and if they believed that the scan increased their lifetime cancer risk. Patients were also asked to estimate the radiation dose for the CT scan compared with that for one chest radiograph. ED physicians who requested CT scans and radiologists who reviewed the CT scans were surveyed with similar questions and an additional question regarding the number of years in practice. The chi(2) test of independence was used to compare the three respondent groups regarding perceived increased cancer risk from one abdominopelvic CT scan. Seven percent (five of 76) of patients reported that they were told about risks and benefits of their CT scan, while 22% (10 of 45) of ED physicians reported that they had provided such information. Forty-seven percent (18 of 38) of radiologists believed that there was increased cancer risk, whereas only 9% (four of 45) of ED physicians and 3% (two of 76) of patients believed that there was increased risk (chi(2)(2) = 41.45, P <.001). All patients and most ED physicians and radiologists were unable to accurately estimate the dose for one CT scan compared with that for one chest radiograph. Patients are not given information about the risks, benefits, and radiation dose for a CT scan. Patients, ED physicians, and radiologists alike are unable to provide accurate estimates of CT doses regardless of their experience level.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                101238455
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI)
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                May 2009
                14 May 2009
                : 6
                : 5
                : 1649-1664
                Affiliations
                Institute of Clinical Physiology, CNR, Pisa, Italy; E-Mail: picano@ 123456ifc.cnr.it
                Article
                ijerph-06-01649
                10.3390/ijerph6051649
                2697934
                19543412
                14bbbb56-d8a5-47c6-9e57-5fa257008ac8
                © 2009 by the authors; licensee Molecular Diversity Preservation International, Basel, Switzerland.

                This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

                History
                : 20 April 2009
                : 12 May 2009
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                appropriateness,benefit,risk,radiation
                Public health
                appropriateness, benefit, risk, radiation

                Comments

                Comment on this article