Charles Vasey

Exercise echocardiography: detection of coronary artery disease in patients with normal left ventricular wall motion at rest.

Most studies investigating the ability of exercise two-dimensional echocardiography to identify patients with coronary artery disease have included patients with left ventricular wall motion abnormalities at rest. This has the effect of increasing sensitivity because patients with only abnormalities at rest are detected. To determine the diagnostic utility of exercise echocardiography in patients with normal wall motion at rest, 64 patients were studied with exercise echocardiography in conjunction with routine treadmill exercise testing before coronary cineangiography. All 24 patients who had no angiographic evidence of coronary artery disease had a negative exercise echocardiogram (100% specificity). Nine of 40 patients with coronary artery disease (defined as greater than or equal to 50% narrowing of at least one major vessel) also had a negative exercise echocardiogram (78% sensitivity). Of the nine patients with a false negative exercise echocardiographic study, six had single vessel disease. Among 25 patients with single vessel disease, exercise echocardiography was significantly more sensitive (p = 0.01) than treadmill exercise testing alone (76 versus 36%, respectively). Among 15 patients with multivessel disease, the two tests demonstrated similar sensitivity (80%). In conclusion, exercise echocardiography is highly specific and moderately sensitive for the detection of coronary artery disease in patients with normal wall motion at rest. Although exercise echocardiography is significantly more sensitive than treadmill exercise electrocardiographic testing alone in patients with single vessel disease, the two tests are similar in their ability to detect coronary artery disease in patients with multivessel disease and normal wall motion at rest.

Prediction of outcomes in hypertensive patients with suspected coronary disease.

Stress echocardiography has been shown to improve the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in the presence of hypertension, but its value in prognostic evaluation is unclear. We sought to determine whether stress echocardiography could be used to predict mortality in 2363 patients with hypertension, who were followed for up to 10 years (mean 4.0±1.8) for death and revascularization. Stress echocardiograms were normal in 1483 patients (63%), 16% had resting left ventricular (LV) dysfunction alone, and 21% had ischemia. Abnormalities were confined to one territory in 489 patients (21%) and to multiple territories in 365 patients (15%). Cardiac death was less frequent among the patients able to exercise than among those undergoing dobutamine echocardiography (4% versus 7%, P < 0.001). The risk of death in patients with a negative stress echocardiogram was <1% per year. Ischemia identified by stress echocardiography was an independent predictor of mortality in those able to exercise (hazard ratio 2.21, 95% confidence intervals 1.10 to 4.43, P =0.0001) as well as those undergoing dobutamine echo (hazard ratio 2.39, 95% confidence intervals 1.53 to 3.75, P =0.0001); other predictors were age, heart failure, resting LV dysfunction, and the Duke treadmill score. In stepwise models replicating the sequence of clinical evaluation, the results of stress echocardiography added prognostic power to models based on clinical and stress-testing variables. Thus, the results of stress echocardiography are an independent predictor of cardiac death in hypertensive patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease, incremental to clinical risks and exercise results.

Development of a clinical and echocardiographic score for assigning risk of major events after exercise and dobutamine echocardiograms

The prognostic value of exercise (EXE) and dobutamine echocardiograms (DbE) has been well defined in large studies. However, while risk is determined by both clinical and echo features, no simple means of combining these data has been defined. We sought to combine these data into risk scores. Methods. At 3 expert centers, 7650 pts underwent standard EXE (n=5211) and DbE (w2439) for evaluation of known or suspected CAD and were followed for up to 10 years (mean 5-2) for major events (death or myocardial infarction). A subgroup of 2953 EXE and 1025 DbE pts was randomly selected to develop separate multivariate models for prediction of events. After simplication of each model for clinical use, models were validated in the remaining EXE and DbE pts. ResuI1s. The total number of events was 200 in the EXE and 225 in the DbE pts, of which 58 and 99 events occurred in the respective testing groups. The following regression equations gave equivalent results I” the testing and validation groups for both EXE and DbE; DbE = (Age’O.02) + (DM’l .O) + (Low RPP’0.6) + ([CHF+lschemia+Scar]‘O.7) EXE = ([DM+CHF]‘O.S) + O.S(lschemla #) + l.B(Scar#) - (METS0.19) (where each categorical variable scored 1 when present and 0 when absent, Ischemia# = 1 for l-2 VD. 6 for 3 VD; Scar# = 1 for 1-2 VD, 1.7 for 3 VD). The table summarizes the scores and equivalent outcomes for EXE and DbE. Conclusions. Risk scores based on clinical and EXE or DbE results may be used to quantify the risk of events during follow-up.