{"title":"已知冠状动脉疾病患者CAC评分的流行:一项明智选择的队列研究","authors":"Sarah J. Murphy, David E. Winchester","doi":"10.1111/jep.70185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring plays a role in risk assessment for presence of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD). Among patients with known CHD, CAC has little or no value. Performing CAC on CHD patients is discouraged by ACC/AHA guidelines and the Choosing Wisely campaign. The extent to which this occurs in clinical practice is not well described.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We evaluated all UF Health patients since 2011 with known CHD who later underwent CAC scoring. We used our Integrated Data Repository to identify the cohort based on International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Data from patient demographics, past medical history, CAC scoring results, ordering provider information and subsequent clinical management were recorded into a custom REDCap database for qualitative analysis. No prespecified statistical plan was performed as the investigation was intended as descriptive.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Upon reviewing all patients with known CHD, we found only 19 instances over 12 years where CAC scoring was ordered. Among these, 14 were men and 5 were women. A large percentage had a past medical history of DM (9, 47.4%) and hypertension (15, 78.9%) with a subclinical CHD diagnosis (17, 89.5%). Statin therapy was already initiated for 13 (68.4%). Most of the CAC scoring tests were ordered by cardiology attendings (10, 52.6%), and the justification most frequently provided was for risk stratification in patients with known CHD. Often (78.9%), there was no significant change in patient management or a slight alteration in medication therapy. One case resulted in percutaneous intervention.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>CAC scoring was rarely ordered among patients with known CHD over a 12-year span. Professional society efforts towards encouraging high-value care may wish to consider more high-impact recommendations in the future.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence of CAC Scoring in Patients With Known Coronary Artery Disease: A Cohort Study on Choosing Wisely\",\"authors\":\"Sarah J. Murphy, David E. Winchester\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring plays a role in risk assessment for presence of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD). Among patients with known CHD, CAC has little or no value. Performing CAC on CHD patients is discouraged by ACC/AHA guidelines and the Choosing Wisely campaign. The extent to which this occurs in clinical practice is not well described.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We evaluated all UF Health patients since 2011 with known CHD who later underwent CAC scoring. We used our Integrated Data Repository to identify the cohort based on International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Data from patient demographics, past medical history, CAC scoring results, ordering provider information and subsequent clinical management were recorded into a custom REDCap database for qualitative analysis. No prespecified statistical plan was performed as the investigation was intended as descriptive.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Upon reviewing all patients with known CHD, we found only 19 instances over 12 years where CAC scoring was ordered. Among these, 14 were men and 5 were women. A large percentage had a past medical history of DM (9, 47.4%) and hypertension (15, 78.9%) with a subclinical CHD diagnosis (17, 89.5%). Statin therapy was already initiated for 13 (68.4%). Most of the CAC scoring tests were ordered by cardiology attendings (10, 52.6%), and the justification most frequently provided was for risk stratification in patients with known CHD. Often (78.9%), there was no significant change in patient management or a slight alteration in medication therapy. One case resulted in percutaneous intervention.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>CAC scoring was rarely ordered among patients with known CHD over a 12-year span. Professional society efforts towards encouraging high-value care may wish to consider more high-impact recommendations in the future.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70185\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70185","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prevalence of CAC Scoring in Patients With Known Coronary Artery Disease: A Cohort Study on Choosing Wisely
Background
Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring plays a role in risk assessment for presence of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD). Among patients with known CHD, CAC has little or no value. Performing CAC on CHD patients is discouraged by ACC/AHA guidelines and the Choosing Wisely campaign. The extent to which this occurs in clinical practice is not well described.
Methods
We evaluated all UF Health patients since 2011 with known CHD who later underwent CAC scoring. We used our Integrated Data Repository to identify the cohort based on International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Data from patient demographics, past medical history, CAC scoring results, ordering provider information and subsequent clinical management were recorded into a custom REDCap database for qualitative analysis. No prespecified statistical plan was performed as the investigation was intended as descriptive.
Results
Upon reviewing all patients with known CHD, we found only 19 instances over 12 years where CAC scoring was ordered. Among these, 14 were men and 5 were women. A large percentage had a past medical history of DM (9, 47.4%) and hypertension (15, 78.9%) with a subclinical CHD diagnosis (17, 89.5%). Statin therapy was already initiated for 13 (68.4%). Most of the CAC scoring tests were ordered by cardiology attendings (10, 52.6%), and the justification most frequently provided was for risk stratification in patients with known CHD. Often (78.9%), there was no significant change in patient management or a slight alteration in medication therapy. One case resulted in percutaneous intervention.
Conclusions
CAC scoring was rarely ordered among patients with known CHD over a 12-year span. Professional society efforts towards encouraging high-value care may wish to consider more high-impact recommendations in the future.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.