Background-Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to aid in the optimal use of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), a technique that is a mainstay of risk assessment for ischemic heart disease. The impact of appropriate use on the prognostic value of SPECT-MPI is unknown. Methods and Results-A prospective cohort study of 1511 consecutive patients undergoing outpatient, community-based SPECT-MPI was conducted. Subjects were stratified on the basis of the 2009 AUC for SPECT-MPI into an appropriate or uncertain appropriateness group and an inappropriate group. Patients were prospectively followed up for 27±10 months for major adverse cardiac events of death, death or myocardial infarction, and cardiac death or myocardial infarction. In the entire cohort, the 167 subjects (11%) with an abnormal scan experienced significantly higher rates of major adverse cardiac events and coronary revascularization than those with normal MPI. Among the 823 subjects (54.5%) whose MPIs were classified as appropriate (779, 51.6%) or uncertain (44, 2.9%), an abnormal scan predicted a multifold increase in the rates of death (9.2% versus 2.6%; hazard ratio, 3.1; P=0.004), death or myocardial infarction (11.8% versus 3.3%; hazard ratio, 3.3; P=0.001), cardiac death or myocardial infarction (6.7% versus 1.7%; hazard ratio, 3.7; P=0.006), and revascularization (24.7% versus 2.7%; hazard ratio, 11.4; P<0.001). Among the 688 subjects (45.5%) with MPI classified as inappropriate, an abnormal MPI failed to predict major adverse cardiac events, although it was associated with a high revascularization rate. Furthermore, appropriate MPI use provided incremental prognostic value beyond myocardial perfusion and ejection fraction data. Conclusions-When performed for appropriate indications, SPECT-MPI continues to demonstrate high prognostic value.However, inappropriate use lacks effectiveness for risk stratification, further emphasizing the need for optimal patient selection for cardiac testing. (Circulation. 2013;128:1634-1643.)