Nuclear cardiology in the UK: activity and practice 1997

Abstract.

A questionnaire was sent to 251 nuclear medicine centres asking for details of nuclear medicine activity, and nuclear cardiology activity and practice in 1997. One hundred and seventy-one (68%) centres replied. Nuclear medicine activity was estimated at 11.8 studies/1,000 population/year, and 9.5% of these studies were within cardiology (1.12 studies/1,000/year). Myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) studies accounted for 77% and radionuclide ventriculography (RNV) for 22% of all nuclear cardiology. On a national basis this represents activity levels of 0.86 and 0.25 studies/1,000/year for MPI and RNV, respectively. Of the 171 responding centres, 102 (60%) performed MPI studies and 81 (79%) of these reported that activity was increasing. However, MPI activity was unevenly distributed between hospitals. Two centres accounted for 13% of total MPI; others had far lower activity rates, and 51/102 (50%) centres performed less than 200 MPI studies/year. Comparison with previous surveys showed that nuclear medicine activity had almost doubled since 1990 (it was 6.0 studies/1,000 population in 1990, 9.3 studies/1,000 in 1994 and 11.8 studies/1,000 in 1997). Over the same period, nuclear cardiology activity had also risen, the greatest increase being seen for the last 3 years (it was 0.7 studies/1,000 population in 1990, 0.82 studies/1,000 in 1994 and 1.12 studies/1,000 in 1997). Despite these encouraging figures, MPI activity for 1997 remained well below that recommended by the British Cardiac Society in 1994 (2.6 studies/1,000/year) as adequate to serve the needs of patients with cardiac disease in the UK; it was also below the European average activity for the same year (2.2 studies/1,000/year). The anticipated increased workload for nuclear cardiology is encouraging despite the wide and varied practice of nuclear cardiology around the UK. The nuclear medicine community now needs to address the issues that will prevent it keeping up with demand, such as restricted camera time, excessive waiting lists and outdated equipment, but also to standardise acquisition and reporting techniques so that all studies, wherever performed, will be of a uniformly high standard.