Suspected and Known Heart Failure

Variant: 1   Adult. Suspected heart failure. No history of heart failure. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category
US echocardiography transthoracic resting Usually Appropriate
Radiography chest Usually Appropriate
US echocardiography transthoracic stress May Be Appropriate
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast May Be Appropriate
Nuclear medicine ventriculography May Be Appropriate
CT heart function and morphology with IV contrast May Be Appropriate
US echocardiography transesophageal Usually Not Appropriate
Arteriography coronary Usually Not Appropriate
MRA coronary arteries without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
MRI heart function with stress without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT chest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT chest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT chest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT coronary calcium Usually Not Appropriate
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
FDG-PET/CT heart Usually Not Appropriate
Rb-82 PET/CT MPI rest and stress Usually Not Appropriate
SPECT or SPECT/CT MPI rest and stress Usually Not Appropriate
Variant: 2   Adult. Known heart failure. Unknown etiology. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category
US echocardiography transthoracic resting Usually Appropriate
US echocardiography transthoracic stress Usually Appropriate
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast Usually Appropriate
MRI heart function with stress without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast Usually Appropriate
SPECT or SPECT/CT MPI rest and stress Usually Appropriate
US echocardiography transesophageal May Be Appropriate
Arteriography coronary May Be Appropriate
CT heart function and morphology with IV contrast May Be Appropriate
FDG-PET/CT heart May Be Appropriate
Rb-82 PET/CT MPI rest and stress May Be Appropriate
Radiography chest Usually Not Appropriate
MRA coronary arteries without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT chest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT chest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT chest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT coronary calcium Usually Not Appropriate
Nuclear medicine ventriculography Usually Not Appropriate
Variant: 3   Adult. Known heart failure. Follow-up imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category
US echocardiography transthoracic resting Usually Appropriate
US echocardiography transthoracic stress Usually Appropriate
MRI heart function and morphology without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate
MRI heart function and morphology without IV contrast Usually Appropriate
MRI heart function with stress without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate
Radiography chest May Be Appropriate
Nuclear medicine ventriculography May Be Appropriate
CT heart function and morphology with IV contrast May Be Appropriate
FDG-PET/CT heart May Be Appropriate
Rb-82 PET/CT MPI rest and stress May Be Appropriate
SPECT or SPECT/CT MPI rest and stress May Be Appropriate
US echocardiography transesophageal Usually Not Appropriate
Arteriography coronary Usually Not Appropriate
MRA coronary arteries without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT chest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT chest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT chest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
CT coronary calcium Usually Not Appropriate
CTA coronary arteries with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate
Kate Hanneman, MD, MPHa; James Roberts, MD, MScb; Prabhakar Shantha Rajiah, MDc; Shawn Ahmad, MD, MBAd; Ryan Avery, MDe; William M. Brown, MDf; Ahmed H. El-Sherief, MDg; Joe Y. Hsu, MDh; Veronica Lenge de Rosen, MDi; Fay Lin, MDj; Gurusher Panjrath, MBBSk; Rahul D. Renapurkar, MBBS, MDl; James A. White, MDm; Michael A. Bolen, MDn.

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
































































































The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document.  The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged.  The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination