Why the study?
Are cardiovascular diagnostic tests appropriately prescribed and do they contribute to clinical management in primary and secondary prevention?
Are cardiovascular diagnostic tests appropriately prescribed and do they contribute to clinical management in primary and secondary prevention?
This review emphasizes the need to reduce inappropriate cardiovascular diagnostic testing to optimize resources, minimize biological risk, and improve care delivery.
In recent years, a huge increase in the use of cardiac procedures, both invasive and non-invasive, was observed. Diagnostic tests, mainly non-invasive tests, are often prescribed inappropriately, in most cases replacing the clinical evaluation. The rate of inappropriate tests in cardiology is largely variable, depending on regional issues and different medical approach. When the test entails radiation exposure, the biological risk for both the patient and the environment must be taken into account. For this reason, the test that results in less biological risk should always be preferred as a first step.Moreover, it has not been clearly demonstrated that some diagnostic tests help to improve the outcome, that is to prevent cardiovascular events. As many as one sixth of the patients who undergo stress imaging are not taking proper medication, and very frequently no change in therapy is made after the test, regardless of the outcome. Since the appropriateness of diagnostic evaluation requests is mandatory, we focused on the diagnostic tests usually performed in primary and secondary prevention that carry no contribution to the clinical management of patients. This review addresses the need to optimize available resources, reduce costs and avoid unnecessary cardiovascular assessments, thereby enhancing the more efficient care delivery models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cherubini et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: