Bridging the ‘Evidence Gap’

I assume many of you saw last Sunday’s New York Times front-page hit-piece on cardiovascular CT scanning. The article questions the practice of using unproven medical technologies, such as CCT, without first gathering and evaluating the evidence. We’d be foolish not to acknowledge considerable inappropriate use of CCT. But, the authors also ignored the considerable evidence that exists. The coverage has generated a good bit of controversy. But, from the feedback we’ve received, the ACC’s and other CV society responses have resonated well as being constructive and non-defensive.

ACC’s BOT VP Ralph Brindis was quoted in the article and a subsequent letter to the editor emphasizing the needed use of registries and appropriateness criteria to both control overuse and promote beneficial uses of imaging modalities like CCT. And, our new Imaging Council, Chaired by Trustee Kim Williams, coordinated a lot of constructive responses.

Incidentally, I think we ought to change our current terminology from “appropriateness criteria” (AC) to something more understandable to media and laypersons. The phrase “appropriate use criteria” (AUC) is the suggestion of our communications shop. As it is, many people’s eyes glaze over when the current term is used.


< Back to Listings