Assessing the prognostic value of cardiovascular imaging: a statistical exercise or a guide to clinical value and application?

Cardiovascular imaging has become the focus of attention from both physicians and payers. The former see the potential of newer modalities to permit new and exciting insights into the diagnosis and management of coronary artery disease (CAD), that, in turn, may result in enhanced patient care strategies and new efficient clinical algorithms. On the other hand, payers have understandable concerns about the excessive use and enormous costs associated with cardiovascular imaging. These concerns have been exacerbated by the rapid expansion of the imaging devices used for the assessment of patients with known or suspected CAD. Cardiovascular stress imaging has long been the domain of stress single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) and stress echocardiography wall motion studies. At present, stress positron emission tomography (PET) MPI, cardiac computed tomography coronary angiography (CTA) (and, possibly, stress CT MPI), as well as cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) MPI and wall motion studies are utilized in daily practice. Whether all of these modalities will be reimbursed in the future is uncertain, but little doubt remains that their rigorous validation will be compulsory.