Publications

2025

Spetko, Nicholas, Jessica Oribabor, Emeka Anyanwu, Thomas B Tyler Iii, Deily F Rodriguez, David Ouyang, and Jordan B Strom. (2025) 2025. “The ImageGuideEcho Registry: Using Data Science to Understand and Improve Echocardiography.”. Current Cardiology Reports 27 (1): 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-025-02199-7.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a contemporary update on the American Society of Echocardiography's ImageGuideEcho Registry and present a case study of an individual institution's experience with enrollment.

RECENT FINDINGS: Technical innovation in clinical echocardiography has expanded the impact of echocardiography in cardiovascular care and provides new opportunities to leverage clinical data to inform quality improvement initiatives and research. The ImageGuideEcho Registry is the first echocardiography-specific imaging registry in the United States and provides a data infrastructure for quality improvement and multicenter research. The ImageGuideEcho Registry continues to grow, offering a window into echocardiography care across the United States in a variety of practice settings. This early experience highlights its value, opportunities, and ongoing challenges. Continued innovation, such as the addition of primary images, will further add to the substantial value of the registry.

Green, Christopher R, Rui Zhang, Raymond F Stainback, Sofia W Ye, Daniel E Forsha, Enrique Garcia-Sayan, Jeffrey C Hill, et al. (2025) 2025. “Analyzing the Creation and Use of Abbreviations in Cardiology and Cardiac Imaging Society Guidelines.”. JACC. Advances 4 (2): 101561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101561.

BACKGROUND: Abbreviation use in clinical and academic cardiology is widespread, yet there are few guidelines regulating the creation and utilization of abbreviations. Inconsistent abbreviations can introduce ambiguity and pose challenges to practice and research.

OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to analyze how abbreviations are created and utilized in general cardiology and cardiac imaging society guidelines in order to assess whether ambiguities and discrepancies exist between societies.

METHODS: Abbreviation data were collected from 7 national and international societies of general cardiology and cardiac imaging over a 6-year span (2018-2023). Data were linguistically coded for abbreviation type, unique occurrence, meaning or sense count, and frequency of discrepancy between societies.

RESULTS: Among a total of 5,394 abbreviation tokens, there were 1,782 unique entries. Among the unique entries, 227 (12.7%) had 2 or more associated meanings (senses), and thus were potentially ambiguous. Cardiac societies differed from each other, and also internally, in their use of abbreviations, with the European Society of Cardiology representing the highest frequency of discrepant abbreviation usage (14.5%).

CONCLUSIONS: More than 12.7% of abbreviations in cardiology society guidelines had 2 or more corresponding meanings, potentially increasing the risks of miscommunication and misrepresentation. We call on cardiology and cardiac imaging societies to define and publish best practices regarding abbreviation creation and utilization.

Strom, Jordan B, Andrew Appis, Richard G Barr, Maria Cristina Chammas, Dirk-André Clevert, Kassa Darge, Linda Feinstein, et al. (2025) 2025. “Multi-Societal Expert Consensus Statement on the Safe Administration of Ultrasound Contrast Agents.”. Echo Research and Practice 12 (1): 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44156-024-00068-7.

Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) offers a safe, reliable imaging option to establish a clinical diagnosis across a variety of multidisciplinary settings. This Expert Consensus Statement serves to outline expert opinion on what constitutes appropriate supervision and the essential components of safe CEUS practice. The purpose of this document is to empower institutions to allow sonographers, along with other trained medical professionals, to administer UCAs at the point of care, consistent with the updated scope of practice documentation and within the broad parameters of an individual's training and licensure, while subject to appropriate supervision and meeting or exceeding minimum safety standards. This guidance was developed by the International Contrast Ultrasound Society and endorsed by the following organizations that represent ultrasound professionals: the British Society of Echocardiography, the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, the Society for Pediatric Radiology, the World Federation of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, the Brazilian College of Radiology, the Joint Review Committee for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, the Chinese Ultrasound Doctors Association, and the American Society of Neuroimaging. Additionally, this guidance document was affirmed or supported by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Association for Medical Ultrasound, and the Society for Vascular Ultrasound.

Akerman, Ashley P, Nora Al-Roub, Constance Angell-James, Madeline A Cassidy, Rasheed Thompson, Lorenzo Bosque, Katharine Rainer, et al. (2025) 2025. “External Validation of Artificial Intelligence for Detection of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.”. Nature Communications 16 (1): 2915. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58283-7.

Artificial intelligence (AI) models to identify heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) based on deep-learning of echocardiograms could help address under-recognition in clinical practice, but they require extensive validation, particularly in representative and complex clinical cohorts for which they could provide most value. In this study enrolling patients with HFpEF (cases; n = 240), and age, sex, and year of echocardiogram matched controls (n = 256), we compare the diagnostic performance (discrimination, calibration, classification, and clinical utility) and prognostic associations (mortality and HF hospitalization) between an updated AI HFpEF model (EchoGo Heart Failure v2) and existing clinical scores (H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF). The AI HFpEF model and H2FPEF score demonstrate similar discrimination and calibration, but classification is higher with AI than H2FPEF and HFA-PEFF, attributable to fewer intermediate scores, due to discordant multivariable inputs. The continuous AI HFpEF model output adds information beyond the H2FPEF, and integration with existing scores increases correct management decisions. Those with a diagnostic positive result from AI have a two-fold increased risk of the composite outcome. We conclude that integrating an AI HFpEF model into the existing clinical diagnostic pathway would improve identification of HFpEF in complex clinical cohorts, and patients at risk of adverse outcomes.

Hernán, Miguel A, Issa J Dahabreh, Barbra A Dickerman, and Sonja A Swanson. (2025) 2025. “The Target Trial Framework for Causal Inference From Observational Data: Why and When Is It Helpful?”. Annals of Internal Medicine 178 (3): 402-7. https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-01871.

When randomized trials are not available to answer a causal question about the comparative effectiveness or safety of interventions, causal inferences are drawn using observational data. A helpful 2-step framework for causal inference from observational data is 1) specifying the protocol of the hypothetical randomized pragmatic trial that would answer the causal question of interest (the target trial), and 2) using the observational data to attempt to emulate that trial. The target trial framework can improve the quality of observational analyses by preventing some common biases. In this article, we discuss the utility and scope of applications of the framework. We clarify that target trial emulation resolves problems related to incorrect design but not those related to data limitations. We also describe some settings in which adopting this approach is advantageous to generate effect estimates that can close the gaps that randomized trials have not filled. In these settings, the target trial framework helps reduce the ambiguity of causal questions.

Paraskevas, Kosmas I, Ali F AbuRahma, Christopher J Abularrage, Daniel G Clair, Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen, Vikram S Kashyap, Alan Dardik, et al. (2025) 2025. “An International, Expert-Based Delphi Consensus Document on Controversial Issues about TransCarotid Artery Revascularization (TCAR).”. Annals of Vascular Surgery 110 (Pt B): 42-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2024.09.048.

BACKGROUND: Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) has emerged as an alternative therapeutic modality to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and transfemoral carotid artery stenting (TFCAS) for the management of patients with carotid artery stenosis. However, certain issues regarding the indications and contraindications of TCAR remain unanswered or unresolved. The aim of this international, expert-based Delphi consensus document was to attempt to provide some guidance on these topics.

METHODS: A 3-round Delphi consensus process was performed, including 29 experts. The aim of round 1 was to investigate the differing views and opinions of the participants. Round 2 was carried out after the results from the literature on each topic were provided to the participants. During round 3, the participants had the opportunity to finalize their vote.

RESULTS: Most participants agreed that TCAR can or can probably or possibly be performed within 14 days of a cerebrovascular event, but it is best to avoid it in the first 48 hr. It was felt that TCAR cannot or should not replace TFCAS or CEA, as each procedure has specific indications and contraindications. Symptomatic patients >80 years should probably be treated with TCAR rather than with TFCAS. TCAR can or can probably be used for the treatment of restenosis following CEA or TFCAS. Finally, there is a need for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to provide better evidence for the unresolved issues.

CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus document attempted to assist the decision-making of physicians or interventionalists or vascular surgeons involved in the management of carotid stenosis patients. Furthermore, areas requiring additional research were identified. Future studies and RCTs should provide more evidence to address the unanswered questions regarding TCAR.

Ramadan, Omar I, Lin Yang, Kaitlyn Shultz, Elizabeth Genovese, Scott M Damrauer, Grace J Wang, Eric A Secemsky, et al. (2025) 2025. “Racial, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Disparities in Preamputation Vascular Care for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.”. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 18 (1): e010931. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.010931.

BACKGROUND: Black patients, those with low socioeconomic status (SES), and those living in rural areas have elevated rates of major lower extremity amputation, which may be related to a lack of subspecialty chronic limb-threatening ischemia care. We evaluated the association between race, rurality, SES, and preamputation vascular care.

METHODS: Among patients aged 66 to 86 years with fee-for-service Medicare who underwent major lower extremity amputation for chronic limb-threatening ischemia from July 2010 to December 2019, we compared the proportion who received vascular care in the 12 months before amputation by race (Black versus White), rurality, and SES (dual eligibility for Medicaid versus no dual eligibility) using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for clinical and demographic covariates.

RESULTS: Among 73 237 patients who underwent major lower extremity amputation, 40 320 (55.1%) had an outpatient vascular subspecialist visit, 60 109 (82.1%) had lower extremity arterial testing, and 28 345 (38.7%) underwent lower extremity revascularization in the year before amputation. Black patients were less likely to have an outpatient vascular specialist visit (adjusted odds ratio [adjOR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.84-0.90]) or revascularization (adjOR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.86-0.93]) than White patients. Compared with patients without low SES or residing in urban areas, patients with low SES or residing in rural areas were less likely to have an outpatient vascular specialist visit (adjOR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.60-0.64]; low SES versus nonlow SES; adjOR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.79-0.85]; rural versus urban), lower extremity arterial testing (adjOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.75-0.81]; low SES versus nonlow SES; adjOR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.0.86-0.94]; rural versus urban), or revascularization (adjOR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.63-0.67]; low SES versus nonlow SES; adjOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.86-0.93]; rural versus urban).

CONCLUSIONS: Black race, rural residence, and low SES are associated with failure to receive subspecialty chronic limb-threatening ischemia care before amputation. To reduce disparities in amputation, multilevel interventions to facilitate equitable chronic limb-threatening ischemia care are needed.

Rashedi, Sina, Antoine Bejjani, Andetta R Hunsaker, Ayaz Aghayev, Candrika D Khairani, Bridget McGonagle, Ying-Chih Lo, et al. (2025) 2025. “Isolated Subsegmental Pulmonary Embolism Identification Based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 Codes and Imaging Reports.”. Thrombosis Research 247: 109271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2025.109271.

BACKGROUND: Isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (issPE) is a commonly encountered diagnosis. Although the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes are used for research, their validity for identifying issPE is unknown. Moreover, issPE diagnosis is challenging, and the findings from radiology reports may conflict with those from expert radiologists.

METHODS: Based on prespecified criteria, 1734 medical records of adult patients hospitalized within the Mass General Brigham health system (2016-2021) were selected in three equal groups: (1) patients with principal discharge diagnosis codes for PE, (2) patients with secondary discharge diagnosis codes for PE, and (3) patients with no PE codes. The accuracy of ICD-10 codes for issPE was verified by two independent physicians and weighted by total hospitalizations. In a randomly selected sample of 70 patients, the accuracy of initial radiology reports was determined through a blinded re-evaluation by two expert radiologists.

RESULTS: In weighted estimates, ICD-10 codes in primary or secondary discharge positions, compared with chart reviews, showed a low sensitivity (7.0 %) and positive predictive value (25.2 %). Evaluation by two expert radiologists noted that initial radiology reports were sensitive (97.1 %) for issPE but had a low specificity (40.0 %). Two (3.6 %) out of 55 patients with initial issPE reports did not have PE, while 19 (34.5 %) had more proximal PE.

CONCLUSIONS: ICD-10 codes for issPE have poor sensitivity and positive predictive value and should not be used for research or quality improvement. Radiology reports for issPE may be inaccurate regarding the location or, less often, the presence of PE.