Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Clinical Guidelines |17 March 2015

Cardiac Screening With Electrocardiography, Stress Echocardiography, or Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: Advice for High-Value Care From the American College of Physicians Free

Roger Chou, MD; for the High Value Care Task Force of the American College of Physicians *

Roger Chou, MD
From Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

for the High Value Care Task Force of the American College of Physicians

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
* This paper, written by Roger Chou, MD, was developed for the High Value Care Task Force of the American College of Physicians. Individuals who served on the High Value Care Task Force from initiation of the project until its approval were Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA (Chair); John Biebelhausen, MD, MBA; Sanjay Desai, MD; Lawrence Feinberg, MD; Carrie A. Horwitch, MD, MPH; Linda L. Humphrey, MD, MPH; Robert M. McLean, MD; Tanveer P. Mir, MD; Darilyn V. Moyer, MD; Kelley M. Skeff, MD, PhD; Thomas G. Tape, MD; and Jeffrey Wiese, MD. Approved by the ACP Board of Regents on 26 July 2014.
  • From Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

    Disclaimer: The authors of this article are responsible for its contents, including any clinical or treatment recommendations.

    Financial Support: Financial support for the development of this guideline comes exclusively from the ACP operating budget.

    Disclosures: Dr. Chou reports grants from the American College of Physicians during the conduct of the study and grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality outside the submitted work. Dr. Moyer reports that she is Chair of the American College of Physicians Board of Governors for 2014–2015. Dr. Skeff reports a consultancy for Wolters Kluwer Health outside the submitted work. Authors not named here have disclosed no conflicts of interest. Authors followed the policy regarding conflicts of interest described at www.annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=745942. Disclosures can also be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterest Forms.do?msNum=M14-1225. A record of conflicts of interest is kept for each High Value Care Task Force meeting and conference call and can be viewed at http://hvc.acponline.org/clinrec.html.

    Requests for Single Reprints: Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MHA, American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106; e-mail, aqaseem@acponline.org.

    Author Contributions: Conception and design: R. Chou.

    Analysis and interpretation of the data: R. Chou.

    Drafting of the article: R. Chou.

    Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: R. Chou.

    Final approval of the article: R. Chou.

    Collection and assembly of data: R. Chou.

×
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
  • FULL ARTICLE
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • What Are the Evidence-Based Recommendations for the Use of Cardiac Testing in Asymptomatic Adults?
    • What Are the Potential Harms of Screening?
    • Does Practice Follow the Evidence?
    • What Forces Promote the Overuse of Cardiac Testing in Asymptomatic Adults?
    • How Can Physicians Reduce Overuse of Cardiac Testing?
    • Conclusion
    • ACP High-Value Care Advice
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link

Abstract

Background:

Cardiac screening in adults with resting or stress electrocardiography, stress echocardiography, or myocardial perfusion imaging can reveal findings associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease events, but inappropriate cardiac testing of low-risk adults has been identified as an important area of overuse by several professional societies.

Methods:

Narrative review based on published systematic reviews; guidelines; and articles on the yield, benefits, and harms of cardiac screening in low-risk adults.

Results:

Cardiac screening has not been shown to improve patient outcomes. It is also associated with potential harms due to false-positive results because they can lead to subsequent, potentially unnecessary tests and procedures. Cardiac screening is likely to be particularly inefficient in adults at low risk for coronary heart disease given the low prevalence and predictive values of testing in this population and the low likelihood that positive findings will affect treatment decisions. In this patient population, clinicians should focus on strategies for mitigating cardiovascular risk by treating modifiable risk factors (such as smoking, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and overweight) and encouraging healthy levels of exercise.

High-Value Care Advice:

Clinicians should not screen for cardiac disease in asymptomatic, low-risk adults with resting or stress electrocardiography, stress echocardiography, or stress myocardial perfusion imaging.

Cardiovascular disease results in 1 of every 3 deaths in the United States, or approximately 800 000 per year (1). Coronary heart disease (CHD) accounts for more than half of all cardiovascular events in adults younger than 75 years and is the leading cause of death (2). Direct and indirect costs of CHD in 2009 were estimated at $195 billion (2).
An important challenge in preventing the negative consequences of CHD is that its first clinical manifestation can be catastrophic, including sudden cardiac death or acute myocardial infarction (3). Among those who die suddenly of CHD, more than half have no antecedent symptoms (2). In addition, myocardial infarction is frequently silent (4, 5), causing no recognized symptoms but negatively affecting prognosis (4, 5).
“Screening” refers to testing for a disease or condition in asymptomatic persons to identify the condition before it manifests clinically. Several tests are available to screen for CHD, including resting or stress electrocardiography (ECG) and stress testing in conjunction with cardiac imaging with echocardiography or myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) (Table 1) (6–10). Electrocardiography is among the most commonly performed diagnostic tests in the United States, and the use of cardiac imaging studies is increasing (11–13), although reliable data are not available on the number of screening studies performed.

Table 1. Estimated Costs of Cardiac Screening Tests

Table 1. Estimated Costs of Cardiac Screening Tests
Despite its intuitive appeal, the benefit of cardiac screening in low-risk adults has long been questioned (14, 15). For screening to be warranted, showing that tests can accurately identify unrecognized CHD or determine the level of risk is insufficient. The findings must also lead to actions resulting in improvements in clinical outcomes that are superior to those resulting from delaying treatment until symptoms appear (16, 17). Most important, the benefits should be greater than what is observed on the basis of risk assessment without such testing (for example, assessment of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, such as age, sex, lipid levels, blood pressure, smoking status, and presence of diabetes) and must outweigh any harms, all at an acceptable cost relative to the benefits (18). Costs of testing include both the direct costs of the procedure itself (Table 1) and downstream costs from additional tests, follow-up, and referrals. In some cases, screening can lead to invasive follow-up tests, such as angiography, and procedures, such as percutaneous revascularization, with their attendant costs and harms. It is therefore important to critically examine practices around cardiac testing. Inappropriate cardiac testing in low-risk adults has been identified by several professional organizations, including the American College of Physicians (ACP), as one of the most overused clinical practices (19). The purpose of this article is to provide practical advice on cardiac screening with ECG, stress echocardiography, or MPI. It does not address the use of coronary computed tomography or nontraditional risk factors, such as C-reactive protein levels or carotid intima–media thickness (20).

Methods

The evidence in this article came from a systematic review (21) and recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on screening with ECG (22); guidelines and standards developed by the American College of Cardiology in conjunction with other professional societies (7, 23, 24); and articles on the yield, benefits, and harms of cardiac screening. This article is not based on a formal systematic review, but instead seeks to provide practical advice based on the best available evidence. The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is asymptomatic, low-risk adults (defined as those with an estimated 10-year risk for CHD events of <10% [25] unless otherwise noted). This article does not address screening of children or adolescents, preparticipation screening of athletes, preoperative evaluation, ECG screening for purposes of drug monitoring, or evaluation of symptoms suggestive of cardiac disease (20, 26). The article was reviewed and approved by the ACP's High Value Care Task Force, whose members are physicians trained in internal medicine and its subspecialties and experts in evidence synthesis. At each meeting, all members of the task force declared any potentially relevant financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest.

What Are the Evidence-Based Recommendations for the Use of Cardiac Testing in Asymptomatic Adults?

The USPSTF recommends against screening low-risk adults with rest or exercise ECG (22). Other groups also do not recommend ECG screening in this population (7, 27–29). A search for primary care, cardiology, or radiology guidelines that recommend cardiac screening in low-risk adults found none.
A systematic review commissioned by the USPSTF found that many abnormalities on screening rest or exercise ECG are associated with an increased risk for subsequent cardiovascular events after adjustment for traditional risk factors (21). However, it found no study on effects of screening on clinical outcomes or on the use of risk-reducing therapies, such as statins or aspirin. In addition, the predictive utility of abnormal findings was relatively weak (pooled adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.4 to 2.1), and no study evaluated how accurately resting or exercise ECG reclassified participants into different risk categories compared with traditional risk factor assessment alone (30–33). Although 1 study published after the USPSTF review reported reclassification rates after resting ECG in a population of older adults with a high prevalence of baseline ECG abnormalities, effects were most pronounced in intermediate-risk patients and the reclassification rate in low-risk patients was not reported (34). This is a critical research gap given that treatment decisions about cardiovascular risk–reducing therapies are often based on the 10-year risk classification level (25, 35), although the thresholds used to categorize risk vary (for example, <10% [25] vs. <7.5% [36] for low risk). Regardless of the threshold used (37), in populations at very low risk (≤5%) for CHD events, the presence of a screening ECG abnormality will generally not move a patient from a lower-risk to a higher-risk category, resulting in little effect on clinical treatment decisions. Based on the Framingham Risk Score, this includes almost all nondiabetic women of any age without cardiovascular risk factors (total cholesterol level >5.2 mmol/L [>200 mg/dL], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level <1.3 mmol/L [<50 mg/dL], smoker, and hypertensive or normotensive while receiving treatment), women younger than 60 years with 1 or 2 risk factors, and men younger than 55 years with no risk factors (Table 2). For example, a 60-year-old woman with average lipid levels (total cholesterol level of 5.5 mmol/L [211 mg/dL] and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 1.5 mmol/L [59 mg/dL]) (38) and no other risk factors would have a 10-year estimated risk for CHD of 2%. Based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.5, the presence of left bundle branch block on ECG would increase this patient's risk to about 3%—still well within the low-risk category.

Table 2. Estimated 10-y Probability of Coronary Heart Disease Based on Traditional Risk Factors

Table 2. Estimated 10-y Probability of Coronary Heart Disease Based on Traditional Risk Factors
Similarly, the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association recommend against stress echocardiography or MPI for cardiovascular risk assessment in low-risk, asymptomatic adults (23). These recommendations are based on the lack of evidence showing that screening improves clinical outcomes, unclear effects on risk reclassification and the use of risk-reducing therapies, and the relatively low prevalence of disease. Appropriate use criteria have also been developed to help evaluate imaging use patterns and identify areas of overuse and underuse (39, 40). Consistent with clinical practice guidelines, appropriate use criteria jointly developed by several professional societies classify screening of low-risk adults as generally not appropriate (24, 41).
One reason that cardiac screening in low-risk patients might be ineffective is that for many of the abnormalities found, there is no proven, effective treatment. For example, treatments for left ventricular hypertrophy that improve clinical outcomes (other than blood pressure management) are lacking (42). Similarly, there are no clear treatments for asymptomatic bundle branch block or nonspecific repolarization abnormalities on ECG. Although exercise training can alleviate chronotropic incompetence and impaired exercise tolerance or functional capacity, such interventions have not been shown to reduce CHD events (43). Conversely, interventions for modifiable CHD risk factors, such as smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and overweight, are generally indicated regardless of cardiac screening test findings.
For silent ischemia, evidence is also insufficient to determine whether treatment prolongs life. Although older randomized trials found evidence of beneficial effects of treatment with atenolol or coronary revascularization (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) for silent ischemia, the differences were not statistically significant for atenolol (relative risk, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.22 to 1.33]). In addition, drug therapies were not optimized and do not reflect current practice, and 25% to 30% of patients previously had revascularization, which limits generalizability to screening (44, 45).
Another potential use of screening ECG is as a baseline study for future comparison when symptoms develop. However, limited evidence suggests that having ECG at baseline rarely affects clinical decisions (46, 47).
The effectiveness of cardiac screening in low-risk adults is also limited by the small number of patients who might benefit from revascularization. In addition to the low overall CHD prevalence, only a small subset of patients will have the type of CHD in which revascularization is associated with survival benefit (left main disease or ≥70% stenosis in ≥2 major coronary arteries, particularly with left anterior descending artery involvement) (48, 49). In the well-conducted Coronary Artery Surgery Study, among patients having coronary angiography for evaluation of nonspecific chest pain, 40% of men and 24% of women had coronary atherosclerosis, but only 3% and 0.6%, respectively, had at least 50% left main stenosis or at least 70% 3-vessel stenosis (50). Although revascularization can be appropriate for symptom relief in patients with lesser degrees of CHD, such benefits obviously cannot be experienced by asymptomatic patients. In addition, most trials showing benefits of revascularization were conducted before the routine use of aspirin, β-blockers, and statins. More recent high-quality evidence suggests that outcomes of revascularization may be similar to those of current optimal medical therapy in symptomatic patients, including those with multivessel disease (51). No trial compared outcomes of revascularization versus medical therapy in asymptomatic patients, but benefits are unlikely given the lower incidence of cardiovascular events.

What Are the Potential Harms of Screening?

Potential harms are a particularly important consideration for screening because patients are asymptomatic and any harms are iatrogenic. More than 90% of low-risk adults will not have a cardiac event in the next 10 years and cannot benefit from additional cardiac screening over that period.
Direct harms seem to be trivial for resting ECG and minimal for exercise ECG (52, 53). For the latter, the overall estimated risk for sudden death or an event requiring hospitalization is about 1 per 10 000 tests (53). Pharmacologic agents to induce stress can cause myocardial ischemia, arrhythmia, hypotension, bronchospasm, and other symptoms, although rates of serious adverse events seem to be low (54, 55).
Myocardial perfusion imaging results in radiation exposure from the use of radionuclide tracers. Medical imaging procedures are the primary source of radiation exposure, with higher cumulative exposure associated with increased risk for subsequent cancer (56). Myocardial perfusion imaging is associated with an average effective radiation dose of 15.6 mSv compared with 0.02 mSv for posteroanterior chest radiography and 8 mSv for abdominal computed tomography (56, 57). One study of persons aged 50 years estimated a risk of 2 to 25 additional cancer cases per 10 000 MPI scans (58), depending on the imaging technique and tracers used.
Harms may also occur due to false-positive results. In low-prevalence populations, even screening tests with high sensitivity and specificity are associated with a low positive predictive value (high rate of false-positive results) (59). Up to three quarters of asymptomatic men with exercise-induced ST-segment depression on ECG have no significant angiographic coronary artery disease (21, 60). Because resting ECG is less accurate, the positive predictive value is even lower. Although the accuracy of stress imaging is higher than that of stress ECG, the positive predictive value is still relatively low (61, 62). Based on a positive likelihood ratio of 8.6 (CI, 5.9 to 12) for stress echocardiography (59), in a population with a pretest probability of CHD of 5%, the estimated posttest probability after a positive test result would be only 31% (61).
Harmful effects may also occur in patients with true-positive screening results because of labeling, health insurance denials, or increased insurance premiums. However, evidence on effects of such harms as a result of cardiac screening is not available.
Harms may also result from follow-up testing and interventions. In studies of asymptomatic or primarily asymptomatic patients, rates of subsequent angiography after an abnormal exercise ECG result ranged from 0.6% to 2.9% (21, 63, 64). In 2 studies, 0.1% and 0.5% of patients who had screening exercise ECG had a revascularization procedure that may have been unnecessary (63, 64). A significant proportion of inappropriate percutaneous coronary interventions are related to treatment of asymptomatic patients. One study of national registry data classified 11.6% of procedures as inappropriate, with more than half of these performed in persons without angina (65).
Downstream harms can occur as a result of these follow-up tests and interventions. Angiography is associated with a risk of about 1.7% for serious adverse events, including death (0.1%), myocardial infarction (0.05%), stroke (0.07%), and arrhythmia (0.4%) (66). Coronary angiography is associated with an average effective radiation dose of 7 mSv (56), and follow-up tests after cardiac screening, such as computed tomography, coronary angiography, and MPI, are also associated with radiation exposure.

Does Practice Follow the Evidence?

Despite widespread concordance among clinical practice guidelines, cardiac screening tests are still frequently done in clinical practice, and their use may be increasing. One study of national survey data found that screening ECG use at general medical examination visits increased from 6.1% to 11.3% from 1999 to 2009 (67). A systematic review found overuse rates of 9.2% for ECG and 3.0% to 52% for cardiac stress tests (68). In a Consumer Reports survey, 39% of asymptomatic adults without high blood pressure or a high cholesterol level reported having ECG within the past 5 years, and 12% reported undergoing exercise ECG (69). More than half reported that their physician recommended it as part of their routine health care.
For cardiac stress imaging, 3 studies found that about 15% of stress MPI and echocardiography examinations did not meet appropriateness criteria, with evaluation of low-risk, asymptomatic patients accounting for about half of the cases in 2 studies and 25% in the other (70–72).

What Forces Promote the Overuse of Cardiac Testing in Asymptomatic Adults?

Several factors may promote overuse of cardiac testing in asymptomatic adults. Clinicians may overestimate the benefits of revascularization on the basis of trials of symptomatic patients that used outdated medical treatment regimens (55, 73). In addition, harms may be underestimated. False-positive results are often overlooked as harms, even though they may result in unnecessary tests and treatment. Harms related to downstream tests and interventions may be unrecognized, and effects of radiation exposure may not manifest for years.
Clinicians may also assume that negative cardiac screening test results provide some benefit by reassuring patients. However, a search identified no studies to support this assumption.
Financial incentives may also promote unnecessary testing. One study based on Medicare data found greater relative increases in payments for MPIs (a relatively highly reimbursed procedure) to cardiologists than radiologists, suggesting a potential increase in inappropriate self-referrals by cardiologists (74). Another study found that follow-up stress MPI and echocardiography after revascularization procedures were more frequent among patients treated by physicians who billed for technical or professional fees than those who did not bill for those services (75).
Patients often overestimate the effectiveness of early detection and preventive interventions (73, 76), potentially leading to overenthusiasm for screening tests in general (77). One study of cancer screening found that nearly three quarters of respondents preferred a total-body computed tomographic scan over $1000 in cash (78). Such expectations are often communicated to physicians and affect clinical decisions, and they may be particularly influential when patient satisfaction is linked to financial incentives (79). Past experiences in receiving cardiac screening tests may also condition patient expectations around future screening. In some cases, cardiac screening is offered as part of a routine physical examination “package.”
Direct-to-consumer cardiac screening, which often includes ECG and other cardiac testing, can bypass clinicians seeking to serve as conscientious gatekeepers. Such screening often takes advantage of consumer concerns about cardiac disease and promotes messages of patient empowerment but provides little in the way of informed decision making, clinical oversight, or follow-up (80).
Overuse of cardiac testing could also be related to the perceived risk for missing a serious diagnosis (81). Cardiac testing may be viewed as a way to protect against lawsuits related to such cases. “Defensive medicine” is the alteration of clinical behavior due to concerns over malpractice liability, with unnecessary diagnostic testing the most frequently reported defensive act (82).

How Can Physicians Reduce Overuse of Cardiac Testing?

Adhering to recommendations to not perform cardiac screening with ECG, MPI, or echocardiography in low-risk patients would help reduce overuse. Cardiovascular risk assessment should start with a global risk score that combines individual risk factor measurements into a single quantitative estimate of risk (81). Many global risk calculators are available, although the risk factors and populations addressed vary (Table 3). For example, the Framingham Risk Score, which was developed and validated in U.S. populations, excludes patients with diabetes and does not incorporate family history of early CHD. Although some tools include these risk factors, they have not been as extensively validated as the Framingham Risk Score in U.S. cohorts (83). Early CHD (typically defined as occurring in a first-degree male relative aged <55 years or a first-degree female relative aged <65 years) is a relatively modest predictor of CHD, with a relative risk of 1.5 to 2.0 after adjustment for other factors (23). Some guidelines consider diabetes a “CHD equivalent” for the purposes of risk categorization (25). Regardless of the risk calculator used, patients can be classified as low-risk according to specified thresholds (for example, 10-year risk for a CHD event of <7.5% or <10%). In patients in the low-risk category, cardiac screening is not indicated. Rather, strategies should focus on treating modifiable risk factors (such as smoking, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and overweight) and encouraging healthy levels of exercise.

Table 3. Cardiovascular Risk Calculators

Table 3. Cardiovascular Risk Calculators
Recommendations for cardiac screening in higher-risk patients are less clear-cut (84). The USPSTF found insufficient evidence to determine whether benefits of screening ECG outweigh harms (22), and the American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association recommend MPI as a potential option for cardiovascular risk assessment in high-risk patients (23). These recommendations are based on the higher prevalence of disease as well as the greater likelihood that findings could affect treatment decisions. Indeed, the greatest potential benefits of screening may be in patients with assessed risk close to the threshold for interventions. One study of adults aged 70 to 79 years that was published after the USPSTF review found that resting ECG correctly reclassified 14% of intermediate-risk adults (34). However, evidence on effects of cardiac screening on clinical outcomes in higher-risk patients is sparse and does not clearly show clinical benefits (85), and cost-effectiveness is uncertain (86). If screening is considered in patients with assessed risk close to treatment thresholds, it is important that they be informed of the important evidence gaps and potential harms before being screened. In patients who meet criteria for treatment on the basis of traditional risk factor assessment, further cardiac screening may be of limited value. Because of the lack of demonstrated benefits, high costs, and potential harms, coronary angiography and revascularization procedures are generally not indicated after cardiac screening, even in high-risk, asymptomatic patients (87).
Efforts to decrease overuse of cardiac screening in low-risk adults should address factors contributing to overuse. Clinician incentives should be based on delivery of appropriate care and not primarily on patient satisfaction, which could reward unnecessary testing. Efforts to reduce overuse related to physician self-referral are also important (88, 89). Enhanced oversight of direct-to-consumer cardiovascular screening is needed, including requirements for informed consent, counseling, and access to follow-up care (90).
Reducing inappropriate cardiac testing practices in clinical practice can be a challenge (91, 92). Efforts are likely to be more effective when they are more active and include individualized feedback (13). The use of health information technology, such as computer-based reminders about appropriate indications for testing at the time the order is placed, is another promising strategy (93).

Conclusion

Health care practices associated with high costs and limited or no benefits provide little value. There is no evidence that cardiac screening of low-risk adults with resting or stress ECG, stress echocardiography, or stress MPI improves patient outcomes, but it is associated with increased costs and potential harms. Implementing recommendations that focus on initial cardiovascular risk assessment based on traditional cardiovascular risk factors and using a global risk score, addressing modifiable risk factors, and not performing additional cardiac screening in low-risk patients would improve patient care while avoiding unnecessary harms and costs. To be most effective, efforts to reduce the use of imaging should be multifocal and should address clinician behaviors, patient expectations, direct-to-consumer screening programs, and financial incentives.

ACP High-Value Care Advice

High-Value Care Advice: Clinicians should not screen for cardiac disease in asymptomatic, low-risk adults with resting or stress electrocardiography, stress echocardiography, or stress myocardial perfusion imaging.
Screening with rest or stress ECG or stress cardiac imaging is not indicated in asymptomatic, low-risk patients. In this population, clinicians should focus on strategies for mitigating cardiovascular risk by treating modifiable risk factors (such as smoking, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and overweight) and encouraging healthy levels of exercise.
The Figure summarizes the recommendation and clinical considerations.
Figure.

Summary of the American College of Physicians advice for high-value care on cardiac screening with electrocardiography, stress echocardiography, or myocardial perfusion imaging.

References

  1. Mensah
    GA
    ,  
    Brown
    DW
    .  
    An overview of cardiovascular disease burden in the United States.
    Health Aff (Millwood)
    2007
    26
    38
    48
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  2. Go
    AS
    ,  
    Mozaffarian
    D
    ,  
    Roger
    VL
    ,  
    Benjamin
    EJ
    ,  
    Berry
    JD
    ,  
    Borden
    WB
    ,  
    et al
    American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee
    Heart disease and stroke statistics—2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association.
    Circulation
    2013
    127
    e6
    e245
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  3. Lerner
    DJ
    ,  
    Kannel
    WB
    .  
    Patterns of coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality in the sexes: a 26-year follow-up of the Framingham population.
    Am Heart J
    1986
    111
    383
    90
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  4. Sheifer
    SE
    ,  
    Gersh
    BJ
    ,  
    Yanez
    ND
    3rd
    ,  
    Ades
    PA
    ,  
    Burke
    GL
    ,  
    Manolio
    TA
    .  
    Prevalence, predisposing factors, and prognosis of clinically unrecognized myocardial infarction in the elderly.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2000
    35
    119
    26
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  5. Sigurdsson
    E
    ,  
    Thorgeirsson
    G
    ,  
    Sigvaldason
    H
    ,  
    Sigfusson
    N
    .  
    Unrecognized myocardial infarction: epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and the prognostic role of angina pectoris. The Reykjavik Study.
    Ann Intern Med
    1995
    122
    96
    102
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  6. Hendel
    RC
    ,  
    Abbott
    BG
    ,  
    Bateman
    TM
    ,  
    Blankstein
    R
    ,  
    Calnon
    DA
    ,  
    Leppo
    JA
    ,  
    et al
    American Society of Nuclear Cardiology
    The role of radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging for asymptomatic individuals.
    J Nucl Cardiol
    2011
    18
    3
    15
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  7. Lauer
    M
    ,  
    Froelicher
    ES
    ,  
    Williams
    M
    ,  
    Kligfield
    P
    .  
    American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology
    Subcommitteeon Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention
    Exercise testing in asymptomatic adults: a statement for professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology, Subcommittee on Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention.
    Circulation
    2005
    112
    771
    6
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  8. Marwick
    TH
    .  
    Stress echocardiography.
    Heart
    2003
    89
    113
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  9. Picano
    E
    .  
    Stress echocardiography: a historical perspective.
    Am J Med
    2003
    114
    126
    30
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  10. von Elm
    E
    ,  
    Altman
    DG
    ,  
    Egger
    M
    ,  
    Pocock
    SJ
    ,  
    Gøtzsche
    PC
    ,  
    Vandenbroucke
    JP
    .  
    STROBE Initiative
    The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.
    Ann Intern Med
    2007
    147
    573
    7
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2010 Summary Tables. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2010. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2010_namcs_web_tables.pdf on 6 June 2014.
  12. Levin
    DC
    ,  
    Rao
    VM
    ,  
    Parker
    L
    ,  
    Frangos
    AJ
    ,  
    Sunshine
    JH
    .  
    Recent trends in utilization of cardiovascular imaging: how important are they for radiology?
    J Am Coll Radiol
    2005
    2
    736
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  13. Stafford
    RS
    .  
    Feedback intervention to reduce routine electrocardiogram use in primary care.
    Am Heart J
    2003
    145
    979
    85
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  14. Sox
    HC
    Jr
    ,  
    Garber
    AM
    ,  
    Littenberg
    B
    .  
    The resting electrocardiogram as a screening test. A clinical analysis.
    Ann Intern Med
    1989
    111
    489
    502
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  15. Sox
    HC
    Jr
    ,  
    Littenberg
    B
    ,  
    Garber
    AM
    .  
    The role of exercise testing in screening for coronary artery disease.
    Ann Intern Med
    1989
    110
    456
    69
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  16. Frame
    PS
    ,  
    Carlson
    SJ
    .  
    A critical review of periodic health screening using specific screening criteria. Part 1: selected diseases of respiratory, cardiovascular, and central nervous systems.
    J Fam Pract
    1975
    2
    29
    36
     PubMed
     PubMed
  17. Woolf
    SH
    ,  
    Battista
    RN
    ,  
    Anderson
    GM
    ,  
    Logan
    AG
    ,  
    Wang
    E
    .  
    Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations. A report by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.
    J Clin Epidemiol
    1990
    43
    891
    905
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  18. Owens
    DK
    ,  
    Qaseem
    A
    ,  
    Chou
    R
    ,  
    Shekelle
    P
    .  
    Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians
    High-value, cost-conscious health care: concepts for clinicians to evaluate the benefits, harms, and costs of medical interventions.
    Ann Intern Med
    2011
    154
    174
    80
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  19. ABIM Foundation. Choosing Wisely: Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question. Philadelphia: ABIM Foundation; 2014. Accessed at www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/american-college-of-physicians on 6 June 2014.
  20. Helfand
    M
    ,  
    Buckley
    DI
    ,  
    Freeman
    M
    ,  
    Fu
    R
    ,  
    Rogers
    K
    ,  
    Fleming
    C
    ,  
    et al
    Emerging risk factors for coronary heart disease: a summary of systematic reviews conducted for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
    Ann Intern Med
    2009
    151
    496
    507
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  21. Chou
    R
    ,  
    Arora
    B
    ,  
    Dana
    T
    ,  
    Fu
    R
    ,  
    Walker
    M
    ,  
    Humphrey
    L
    .  
    Screening asymptomatic adults with resting or exercise electrocardiography: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
    Ann Intern Med
    2011
    155
    375
    85
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  22. Moyer
    VA
    .  
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
    Screening for coronary heart disease with electrocardiography: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
    Ann Intern Med
    2012
    157
    512
    8
     PubMed
  23. Greenland
    P
    ,  
    Alpert
    JS
    ,  
    Beller
    GA
    ,  
    Benjamin
    EJ
    ,  
    Budoff
    MJ
    ,  
    Fayad
    ZA
    ,  
    et al
    American College of Cardiology Foundation
    2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2010
    56
    e50
    103
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  24. Douglas
    PS
    ,  
    Khandheria
    B
    ,  
    Stainback
    RF
    ,  
    Weissman
    NJ
    ,  
    Peterson
    ED
    ,  
    Hendel
    RC
    ,  
    et al
    American College of Cardiology Foundation
    ACCF/ASE/ACEP/AHA/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR 2008 appropriateness criteria for stress echocardiography: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, American Society of Echocardiography, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2008
    51
    1127
    47
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  25. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III)
    Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report.
    Circulation
    2002
    106
    3143
    421
     PubMed
     PubMed
  26. Buckley
    DI
    ,  
    Fu
    R
    ,  
    Freeman
    M
    ,  
    Rogers
    K
    ,  
    Helfand
    M
    .  
    C-reactive protein as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analyses for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
    Ann Intern Med
    2009
    151
    483
    95
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  27. American Academy of Family Physicians
    Recommendations for clinical preventive services.
    Leawood, KS
    American Academy of Family Physicians
    2010
  28. Balady
    GJ
    ,  
    Franklin
    BA
    ,  
    Whaley
    MH
    ,  
    Howley
    ET
    .  
    ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 6th ed.
    Philadelphia
    Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    2000
  29. Lim
    LS
    ,  
    Haq
    N
    ,  
    Mahmood
    S
    ,  
    Hoeksema
    L
    .  
    ACPM Prevention Practice Committee
    Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease screening in adults: American College of Preventive Medicine position statement on preventive practice.
    Am J Prev Med
    2011
    40
    381
     PubMed
     PubMed
  30. Janes
    H
    ,  
    Pepe
    MS
    ,  
    Gu
    W
    .  
    Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables.
    Ann Intern Med
    2008
    149
    751
    60
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  31. Cook
    NR
    ,  
    Buring
    JE
    ,  
    Ridker
    PM
    .  
    The effect of including C-reactive protein in cardiovascular risk prediction models for women.
    Ann Intern Med
    2006
    145
    21
    9
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  32. Pencina
    MJ
    ,  
    D'Agostino
    RB
    Sr
    ,  
    D'Agostino
    RB
    Jr
    ,  
    Vasan
    RS
    .  
    Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond.
    Stat Med
    2008
    27
    157
    72
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  33. Cook
    NR
    .  
    Statistical evaluation of prognostic versus diagnostic models: beyond the ROC curve.
    Clin Chem
    2008
    54
    17
    23
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  34. Auer
    R
    ,  
    Bauer
    DC
    ,  
    Marques-Vidal
    P
    ,  
    Butler
    J
    ,  
    Min
    LJ
    ,  
    Cornuz
    J
    ,  
    et al
    Health ABC Study
    Association of major and minor ECG abnormalities with coronary heart disease events.
    JAMA
    2012
    307
    1497
    505
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  35. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
    Aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
    Ann Intern Med
    2009
    150
    396
    404
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  36. Stone
    NJ
    ,  
    Robinson
    JG
    ,  
    Lichtenstein
    AH
    ,  
    BaireyMerz
    CN
    ,  
    Blum
    CB
    ,  
    Eckel
    RH
    ,  
    et al
    American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines
    2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.
    Circulation
    2014
    129
    S1
    45
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  37. Abramson
    JD
    ,  
    Rosenberg
    HG
    ,  
    Jewell
    N
    ,  
    Wright
    JM
    .  
    Should people at low risk of cardiovascular disease take a statin?
    BMJ
    2013
    347
    f6123
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  38. Carroll
    MD
    ,  
    Kit
    BK
    ,  
    Lacher
    DA
    .  
    Total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009–2010.
    NCHS Data Brief
    2012
    1
    8
  39. Fitch
    K
    ,  
    Bernstein
    SJ
    ,  
    Aguilar
    MS
    ,  
    Burnand
    B
    ,  
    LaCalle
    JR
    ,  
    Lazaro
    P
    ,  
    et al
    The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual.
    Santa Monica, CA
    RAND Corporation
    2001
  40. Patel
    MR
    ,  
    Spertus
    JA
    ,  
    Brindis
    RG
    ,  
    Hendel
    RC
    ,  
    Douglas
    PS
    ,  
    Peterson
    ED
    ,  
    et al
    American College of Cardiology Foundation
    ACCF proposed method for evaluating the appropriateness of cardiovascular imaging.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2005
    46
    1606
    13
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  41. Hendel
    RC
    ,  
    Berman
    DS
    ,  
    DiCarli
    MF
    ,  
    Heidenreich
    PA
    ,  
    Henkin
    RE
    ,  
    Pellikka
    PA
    ,  
    et al
    American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force
    ACCF/ASNC/ACR/AHA/ASE/SCCT/SCMR/SNM 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Radionuclide Imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, the American College of Radiology, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2009
    53
    2201
    29
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  42. Lauer
    MS
    .  
    What now with screening electrocardiography? [Editorial].
    Ann Intern Med
    2011
    155
    395
    7
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  43. Brubaker
    PH
    ,  
    Kitzman
    DW
    .  
    Chronotropic incompetence: causes, consequences, and management.
    Circulation
    2011
    123
    1010
    20
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  44. Pepine
    CJ
    ,  
    Cohn
    PF
    ,  
    Deedwania
    PC
    ,  
    Gibson
    RS
    ,  
    Handberg
    E
    ,  
    Hill
    JA
    ,  
    et al
    Effects of treatment on outcome in mildly symptomatic patients with ischemia during daily life. The Atenolol Silent Ischemia Study (ASIST).
    Circulation
    1994
    90
    762
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  45. Davies
    RF
    ,  
    Goldberg
    AD
    ,  
    Forman
    S
    ,  
    Pepine
    CJ
    ,  
    Knatterud
    GL
    ,  
    Geller
    N
    ,  
    et al
    Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study two-year follow-up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization.
    Circulation
    1997
    95
    2037
    43
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  46. Rubenstein
    LZ
    ,  
    Greenfield
    S
    .  
    The baseline ECG in the evaluation of acute cardiac complaints.
    JAMA
    1980
    244
    2536
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  47. Hoffman
    JR
    ,  
    Igarashi
    E
    .  
    Influence of electrocardiographic findings on admission decisions in patients with acute chest pain.
    Am J Med
    1985
    79
    699
    707
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  48. Hillis
    LD
    ,  
    Smith
    PK
    ,  
    Anderson
    JL
    ,  
    Bittl
    JA
    ,  
    Bridges
    CR
    ,  
    Byrne
    JG
    ,  
    et al
    American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines
    2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
    2012
    143
    4
    34
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  49. Yusuf
    S
    ,  
    Zucker
    D
    ,  
    Peduzzi
    P
    ,  
    Fisher
    LD
    ,  
    Takaro
    T
    ,  
    Kennedy
    JW
    ,  
    et al
    Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration.
    Lancet
    1994
    344
    563
    70
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  50. Chaitman
    BR
    ,  
    Bourassa
    MG
    ,  
    Davis
    K
    ,  
    Rogers
    WJ
    ,  
    Tyras
    DH
    ,  
    Berger
    R
    ,  
    et al
    Angiographic prevalence of high-risk coronary artery disease in patient subsets (CASS).
    Circulation
    1981
    64
    360
    7
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  51. Boden
    WE
    ,  
    O'Rourke
    RA
    ,  
    Teo
    KK
    ,  
    Hartigan
    PM
    ,  
    Maron
    DJ
    ,  
    Kostuk
    WJ
    ,  
    et al
    COURAGE Trial Research Group
    Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease.
    N Engl J Med
    2007
    356
    1503
    16
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  52. Hollenberg
    M
    ,  
    Zoltick
    JM
    ,  
    Go
    M
    ,  
    Yaney
    SF
    ,  
    Daniels
    W
    ,  
    Davis
    RC
    Jr
    ,  
    et al
    Comparison of a quantitative treadmill exercise score with standard electrocardiographic criteria in screening asymptomatic young men for coronary artery disease.
    N Engl J Med
    1985
    313
    600
    6
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  53. Myers
    J
    ,  
    Arena
    R
    ,  
    Franklin
    B
    ,  
    Pina
    I
    ,  
    Kraus
    WE
    ,  
    McInnis
    K
    ,  
    et al
    American Heart Association Committee on Exercise, Cardiac Rehabilitation, and Prevention of the Council on Clinical Cardiology
    the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism, and the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing
    Recommendations for clinical exercise laboratories: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
    Circulation
    2009
    119
    3144
    61
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  54. Ranhosky
    A
    ,  
    Kempthorne-Rawson
    J
    .  
    The safety of intravenous dipyridamole thallium myocardial perfusion imaging. Intravenous Dipyridamole Thallium Imaging Study Group.
    Circulation
    1990
    81
    1205
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  55. Lattanzi
    F
    ,  
    Picano
    E
    ,  
    Adamo
    E
    ,  
    Varga
    A
    .  
    Dobutamine stress echocardiography: safety in diagnosing coronary artery disease.
    Drug Saf
    2000
    22
    251
    62
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  56. Fazel
    R
    ,  
    Krumholz
    HM
    ,  
    Wang
    Y
    ,  
    Ross
    JS
    ,  
    Chen
    J
    ,  
    Ting
    HH
    ,  
    et al
    Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures.
    N Engl J Med
    2009
    361
    849
    57
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  57. Cerqueira
    MD
    ,  
    Allman
    KC
    ,  
    Ficaro
    EP
    ,  
    Hansen
    CL
    ,  
    Nichols
    KJ
    ,  
    Thompson
    RC
    ,  
    et al
    Recommendations for reducing radiation exposure in myocardial perfusion imaging.
    J Nucl Cardiol
    2010
    17
    709
    18
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  58. Berrington de Gonzalez
    A
    ,  
    Kim
    KP
    ,  
    Smith-Bindman
    R
    ,  
    McAreavey
    D
    .  
    Myocardial perfusion scans: projected population cancer risks from current levels of use in the United States.
    Circulation
    2010
    122
    2403
    10
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  59. Banerjee
    A
    ,  
    Newman
    DR
    ,  
    Van den Bruel
    A
    ,  
    Heneghan
    C
    .  
    Diagnostic accuracy of exercise stress testing for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
    Int J Clin Pract
    2012
    66
    477
    92
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  60. Uhl
    GS
    ,  
    Froelicher
    V
    .  
    Screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    1983
    1
    946
    55
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  61. Mahajan
    N
    ,  
    Polavaram
    L
    ,  
    Vankayala
    H
    ,  
    Ference
    B
    ,  
    Wang
    Y
    ,  
    Ager
    J
    ,  
    et al
    Diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion imaging and stress echocardiography for the diagnosis of left main and triple vessel coronary artery disease: a comparative meta-analysis.
    Heart
    2010
    96
    956
    66
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  62. Fleischmann
    KE
    ,  
    Hunink
    MG
    ,  
    Kuntz
    KM
    ,  
    Douglas
    PS
    .  
    Exercise echocardiography or exercise SPECT imaging? A meta-analysis of diagnostic test performance.
    JAMA
    1998
    280
    913
    20
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  63. Aktas
    MK
    ,  
    Ozduran
    V
    ,  
    Pothier
    CE
    ,  
    Lang
    R
    ,  
    Lauer
    MS
    .  
    Global risk scores and exercise testing for predicting all-cause mortality in a preventive medicine program.
    JAMA
    2004
    292
    1462
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  64. Cournot
    M
    ,  
    Taraszkiewicz
    D
    ,  
    Galinier
    M
    ,  
    Chamontin
    B
    ,  
    Boccalon
    H
    ,  
    Hanaire-Broutin
    H
    ,  
    et al
    Is exercise testing useful to improve the prediction of coronary events in asymptomatic subjects?
    Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil
    2006
    13
    37
    44
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  65. Chan
    PS
    ,  
    Patel
    MR
    ,  
    Klein
    LW
    ,  
    Krone
    RJ
    ,  
    Dehmer
    GJ
    ,  
    Kennedy
    K
    ,  
    et al
    Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention.
    JAMA
    2011
    306
    53
    61
     PubMed
     PubMed
  66. de Bono
    D
    .  
    Complications of diagnostic cardiac catheterisation: results from 34,041 patients in the United Kingdom confidential enquiry into cardiac catheter complications. The Joint Audit Committee of the British Cardiac Society and Royal College of Physicians of London.
    Br Heart J
    1993
    70
    297
    300
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  67. Kale
    MS
    ,  
    Bishop
    TF
    ,  
    Federman
    AD
    ,  
    Keyhani
    S
    .  
    Trends in the overuse of ambulatory health care services in the United States.
    JAMA Intern Med
    2013
    173
    142
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  68. Korenstein
    D
    ,  
    Falk
    R
    ,  
    Howell
    EA
    ,  
    Bishop
    T
    ,  
    Keyhani
    S
    .  
    Overuse of health care services in the United States: an understudied problem.
    Arch Intern Med
    2012
    172
    171
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  69. Schwartz
    A
    ,  
    Amidon
    P
    ,  
    Avitzur
    O
    ,  
    Begley
    K
    ,  
    Byrne
    S
    ,  
    Benatar
    G
    ,  
    et al
    Heart Disease Prevention Survey.
    Yonkers, NY
    Consumer Reports National Research Center
    2010
  70. Hendel
    RC
    ,  
    Cerqueira
    M
    ,  
    Douglas
    PS
    ,  
    Caruth
    KC
    ,  
    Allen
    JM
    ,  
    Jensen
    NC
    ,  
    et al
    A multicenter assessment of the use of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging with appropriateness criteria.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2010
    55
    156
    62
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  71. Gibbons
    RJ
    ,  
    Miller
    TD
    ,  
    Hodge
    D
    ,  
    Urban
    L
    ,  
    Araoz
    PA
    ,  
    Pellikka
    P
    ,  
    et al
    Application of appropriateness criteria to stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies and stress echocardiograms in an academic medical center.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2008
    51
    1283
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  72. Winchester
    DE
    ,  
    Meral
    R
    ,  
    Ryals
    S
    ,  
    Beyth
    RJ
    ,  
    Shaw
    LJ
    .  
    Appropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging in a veteran population: profit motives and professional liability concerns [Letter].
    JAMA Intern Med
    2013
    173
    1381
    3
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  73. Kravitz
    RL
    ,  
    Callahan
    EJ
    .  
    Patients' perceptions of omitted examinations and tests: a qualitative analysis.
    J Gen Intern Med
    2000
    15
    38
    45
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  74. Levin
    DC
    ,  
    Rao
    VM
    ,  
    Parker
    L
    ,  
    Frangos
    AJ
    ,  
    Intenzo
    CM
    .  
    Recent payment and utilization trends in radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging: comparison between self-referral and referral to radiologists.
    J Am Coll Radiol
    2009
    6
    437
    41
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  75. Shah
    BR
    ,  
    Cowper
    PA
    ,  
    O'Brien
    SM
    ,  
    Jensen
    N
    ,  
    Patel
    MR
    ,  
    Douglas
    PS
    ,  
    et al
    Association between physician billing and cardiac stress testing patterns following coronary revascularization.
    JAMA
    2011
    306
    1993
    2000
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  76. Hudson
    B
    ,  
    Zarifeh
    A
    ,  
    Young
    L
    ,  
    Wells
    JE
    .  
    Patients' expectations of screening and preventive treatments.
    Ann Fam Med
    2012
    10
    495
    502
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  77. Woolf
    SH
    .  
    The price of false beliefs: unrealistic expectations as a contributor to the health care crisis [Editorial].
    Ann Fam Med
    2012
    10
    491
    4
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  78. Schwartz
    LM
    ,  
    Woloshin
    S
    ,  
    Fowler
    FJ
    Jr
    ,  
    Welch
    HG
    .  
    Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.
    JAMA
    2004
    291
    71
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  79. Wilson
    IB
    ,  
    Dukes
    K
    ,  
    Greenfield
    S
    ,  
    Kaplan
    S
    ,  
    Hillman
    B
    .  
    Patients' role in the use of radiology testing for common office practice complaints.
    Arch Intern Med
    2001
    161
    256
    63
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  80. Lovett
    KM
    ,  
    Liang
    BA
    .  
    Direct-to-consumer cardiac screening and suspect risk evaluation.
    JAMA
    2011
    305
    2567
    8
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  81. Carrier
    ER
    ,  
    Reschovsky
    JD
    ,  
    Katz
    DA
    ,  
    Mello
    MM
    .  
    High physician concern about malpractice risk predicts more aggressive diagnostic testing in office-based practice.
    Health Aff (Millwood)
    2013
    32
    1383
    91
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  82. Studdert
    DM
    ,  
    Mello
    MM
    ,  
    Sage
    WM
    ,  
    DesRoches
    CM
    ,  
    Peugh
    J
    ,  
    Zapert
    K
    ,  
    et al
    Defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment.
    JAMA
    2005
    293
    2609
    17
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  83. Matheny
    M
    ,  
    McPheeters
    ML
    ,  
    Glasser
    A
    ,  
    Mercaldo
    N
    ,  
    Weaver
    RB
    ,  
    Jerome
    RN
    ,  
    et al
    Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Assessment Tools. Evidence syntheses/technology assessments, no. 85.
    Rockville, MD
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    2011
  84. Ferket
    BS
    ,  
    Genders
    TS
    ,  
    Colkesen
    EB
    ,  
    Visser
    JJ
    ,  
    Spronk
    S
    ,  
    Steyerberg
    EW
    ,  
    et al
    Systematic review of guidelines on imaging of asymptomatic coronary artery disease.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2011
    57
    1591
    600
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  85. Young
    LH
    ,  
    Wackers
    FJ
    ,  
    Chyun
    DA
    ,  
    Davey
    JA
    ,  
    Barrett
    EJ
    ,  
    Taillefer
    R
    ,  
    et al
    DIAD Investigators
    Cardiac outcomes after screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: the DIAD study: a randomized controlled trial.
    JAMA
    2009
    301
    1547
    55
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  86. Galper
    BZ
    ,  
    Moran
    A
    ,  
    Coxson
    PG
    ,  
    Pletcher
    MJ
    ,  
    Heidenreich
    P
    ,  
    Lazar
    LD
    ,  
    et al
    Using stress testing to guide primary prevention of coronary heart disease among intermediate-risk patients: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Circulation
    2012
    125
    260
    70
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  87. Patel
    MR
    ,  
    Dehmer
    GJ
    ,  
    Hirshfeld
    JW
    ,  
    Smith
    PK
    ,  
    Spertus
    JA
    .  
    American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force
    ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.
    J Am Coll Cardiol
    2009
    53
    530
    53
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  88. Iglehart
    JK
    .  
    Health insurers and medical-imaging policy—a work in progress.
    N Engl J Med
    2009
    360
    1030
    7
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  89. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
    Report to the Congress: Improving Incentives in the Medicare Program.
    Washington, DC
    Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
    2009
  90. Lockwood
    CM
    .  
    Direct-to-consumer cardiac screening tests: user beware.
    Clin Chem
    2012
    58
    1068
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  91. Gibbons
    RJ
    ,  
    Askew
    JW
    ,  
    Hodge
    D
    ,  
    Kaping
    B
    ,  
    Carryer
    DJ
    ,  
    Miller
    T
    .  
    Appropriate use criteria for stress single-photon emission computed tomography sestamibi studies: a quality improvement project.
    Circulation
    2011
    123
    499
    503
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  92. Grimshaw
    JM
    ,  
    Shirran
    L
    ,  
    Thomas
    R
    ,  
    Mowatt
    G
    ,  
    Fraser
    C
    ,  
    Bero
    L
    ,  
    et al
    Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions.
    Med Care
    2001
    39
    II2
    45
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  93. Neilson
    EG
    ,  
    Johnson
    KB
    ,  
    Rosenbloom
    ST
    ,  
    Dupont
    WD
    ,  
    Talbert
    D
    ,  
    Giuse
    DA
    ,  
    et al
    Resource Utilization Committee
    The impact of peer management on test-ordering behavior.
    Ann Intern Med
    2004
    141
    196
    204
    CrossRef
     PubMed
Figure.

Summary of the American College of Physicians advice for high-value care on cardiac screening with electrocardiography, stress echocardiography, or myocardial perfusion imaging.

Table 1. Estimated Costs of Cardiac Screening Tests

Table 1. Estimated Costs of Cardiac Screening Tests

Table 2. Estimated 10-y Probability of Coronary Heart Disease Based on Traditional Risk Factors

Table 2. Estimated 10-y Probability of Coronary Heart Disease Based on Traditional Risk Factors

Table 3. Cardiovascular Risk Calculators

Table 3. Cardiovascular Risk Calculators

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.


Cardiac Screening With Electrocardiography, Stress Echocardiography, or Myocardial Perfusion Imaging

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

2 Comments

Paul Zimmermann, M.D.

South Carolina Health

March 25, 2015

Cardiac Screening: Advice for High Vale Care

The Chou article(1) on cardiac screening recommends that resting ECGs should not be performed in asymptomatic adults. I find this recommendation, in many instances, going against the standard of care. It is standard to get ECGs on athletes for screenings, who, by definition, are asymptomatic. The European community(2) continues to find this intervention cost effective. In finding against screening ECGs, Chou et.al. cite two articles showing limited utility of ECGs. One by Rubenstein and Greenfield JAMA 1980 (3) found ‘the routine ECG has little value as a baseline’. But in their article, they referenced 5% of patients were grouped into a class that ECGs could be useful. 5% of patients seems pretty important to me. The other report by Hoffman and Igarashi(4) recommend against routine ordering ECGs in patients with chest pain. This conclusion today is consistent with medical malpractice. I am in agreement with the finding that stress testing is overutilized. I find that extending the argument to resting ECGs to be an unwanted stretch.
References
1.Chou R, High Value Task Force ACP. Cardiac screening with, stress echocardiography, or myocardial perfusion: Advice for High Value care from the ACP. Ann Int Med. 2015; 162:438-447.
2.Myerburg RJ, Vetter VL. Electrocardiograms should be included in preparticipation screening of athletes. Circulation. 2007; 116:2616-226.
3.Rubenstein LZ, Greenfield S. The baseline ECG in the evaluation of acute cardiac symptoms. JAMA 1980; 244:2536-2539.
4.Hoffman JR, Igarashi E. Influence of electrocardiographic findings in admission decisions in patients with acute chest pain. Am J Med 1985; 79:699-707.

Roger Chou, MD

Oregon Health & Science University

May 4, 2015

In response

As described in the methods, our article on cardiac screening explicitly excluded preparticipation evaluation of athletes (1) thus the cited articles on screening of athletes are not relevant to it. To clarify the findings of the Rubenstein study, it found that in chest pain patients presenting to the emergency room, 5% (11/236) might have had an admission avoided if a baseline ECG had been available (2). However, this is a maximal estimate, as 9 of the 11 patients did not have a baseline ECG, and how many admissions would have actually been avoided is unknown. Further, the authors found no cases in which an inappropriate discharge was avoided because a baseline ECG was available. The Hoffman study found that baseline ECG’s were not helpful in admission decisions in any of 84 patients presenting to the ER with acute chest pain (3). Its findings regarding the utility of ECG’s for evaluation of acute chest pain are not relevant to our article, which only address screening of asymptomatic persons. Nonetheless, it is misleading to suggest that the Hoffman study recommends against appropriate use of ECG’s in this setting. Rather, it states that ECG’s may not be necessary in patients with chest pain that is unlikely to be due to cardiac ischemia based on history and examination (e.g., chest pain that is obviously musculoskeletal or due to esophageal reflux disease, or chest pain with very atypical features in a young adult).

1. Chou R. Cardiac screening with electrocardiography, stress echocardiography, or myocardial perfusion imaging: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:43-47.

2. Rubenstein LZ, Greenfield S. The baseline ECG in the evaluation of acute cardiac complaints. JAMA 1980;244:2536-9.

3. Hoffman JR, Igarashi E. Influence of electrocardiographic findings on admission decisions in patients with acute chest pain. Am J Med 1985;79:699-707.

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Chou R, for the High Value Care Task Force of the American College of Physicians. Cardiac Screening With Electrocardiography, Stress Echocardiography, or Myocardial Perfusion Imaging: Advice for High-Value Care From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:438–447. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1225

Download citation file:

  • Ris (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2019

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(6):438-447.

DOI: 10.7326/M14-1225

©
2015 American College of Physicians
25 Citations

See Also

Cardiac Screening With Electrocardiography, Stress Echocardiography, or Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Cardiac Screening
Cardiac Screening
View MoreView Less

Related Articles

Cardiac Screening With Electrocardiography, Stress Echocardiography, or Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Annals of Internal Medicine; 162 (6): I-38
Empirical Evidence of the Importance of Comparative Studies of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Annals of Internal Medicine; 158 (7): 544-554
The Optimal Imaging Strategy for Patients With Stable Chest Pain: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Annals of Internal Medicine; 162 (7): 474-484
World Health Organization Guidelines on Medicines for Diabetes Treatment Intensification: Commentary From the American College of Physicians High Value Care Committee
Annals of Internal Medicine; 169 (6): 398-400
View MoreView Less

Journal Club

Liraglutide reduced a composite renal outcome at a median 4 y in patients with type 2 diabetes and high CV risk
Annals of Internal Medicine; 167 (12): JC66
Semaglutide reduced a composite of CV events at 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes and high CV risk
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (2): JC8
In patients with type 2 diabetes and high CV risk, liraglutide reduced a composite CV outcome at a median 3.8 y
Annals of Internal Medicine; 165 (8): JC38
Rosuvastatin reduced major cardiovascular events in patients at intermediate cardiovascular risk
Annals of Internal Medicine; 165 (2): JC6
View MoreView Less

Related Point of Care

Preoperative Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery
Annals of Internal Medicine; 165 (11): ITC81-ITC96
View MoreView Less

Related Topics

Cardiac Diagnosis and Imaging
Cardiology
Guidelines
High Value Care
Prevention/Screening

Cardiac Diagnosis and Imaging, Cardiology, Guidelines, High Value Care, Prevention/Screening.

PubMed Articles

Evaluation of non-ECG and ECG-gated computed tomographic angiography for three-dimensional printing of anomalous coronary arteries in dogs with pulmonic stenosis.
J Vet Cardiol 2019;
Echocardiographic assessment of right heart size and function in dogs with pulmonary valve stenosis.
J Vet Cardiol 2019;
View More

Results provided by: PubMed

CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Latest RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards and Cover

  • Personae (Cover Photo)
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×