OBJECTIVE: A previously developed pretest score was validated to stratify patients presenting for exercise testing with suspected coronary disease according to the presence of angiographic coronary disease. Our goal was to determine how well this pretest score risk stratified patients undergoing pharmacological and exercise stress tests concerning prognostic endpoints. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: University hospital stress laboratory. PATIENTS: 7452 unselected ambulatory patients with symptoms of suspected coronary disease undergoing stress testing between 1995 and 2004. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: All-cause death, cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS: The rate of all-cause death was 5.5% (CI 5.0 to 6.1) with 4.3 (SD 2.4) years of follow-up (Exercise 2.8% (CI 2.3 to 3.2) v Pharmacological group 11.9% (CI 10.5 to 13.3); p<0.001). The rate of cardiac death/myocardial infarction was 2.6% (CI 2.2 to 3.0) (Exercise 1.4% (CI 1.1 to 1.8) v Pharmacological group 5.3% (CI 4.3 to 6.2); p<0.001). In both groups, stratification by pretest score was significant for all-cause death and the combined endpoint. However, stratification was more effective in the pharmacological group using the combined endpoint rather than all-cause death. Pharmacological stress patients in intermediate and high risk groups were at higher risk than their respective exercise test cohorts. Referral for pharmacological stress testing was found to be an independent predictor of time to death (2.7 (CI 2.0 to 3.6); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A pretest score previously validated to stratify according to angiographic outcomes, effectively risk stratified pharmacological and exercise stress patients according to the combined endpoint of cardiac death/myocardial infarction.
OBJECTIVE: A previously developed pretest score was validated to stratify patients presenting for exercise testing with suspected coronary disease according to the presence of angiographic coronary disease. Our goal was to determine how well this pretest score risk stratified patients undergoing pharmacological and exercise stress tests concerning prognostic endpoints. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: University hospital stress laboratory. PATIENTS: 7452 unselected ambulatory patients with symptoms of suspected coronary disease undergoing stress testing between 1995 and 2004. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: All-cause death, cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS: The rate of all-cause death was 5.5% (CI 5.0 to 6.1) with 4.3 (SD 2.4) years of follow-up (Exercise 2.8% (CI 2.3 to 3.2) v Pharmacological group 11.9% (CI 10.5 to 13.3); p<0.001). The rate of cardiac death/myocardial infarction was 2.6% (CI 2.2 to 3.0) (Exercise 1.4% (CI 1.1 to 1.8) v Pharmacological group 5.3% (CI 4.3 to 6.2); p<0.001). In both groups, stratification by pretest score was significant for all-cause death and the combined endpoint. However, stratification was more effective in the pharmacological group using the combined endpoint rather than all-cause death. Pharmacological stress patients in intermediate and high risk groups were at higher risk than their respective exercise test cohorts. Referral for pharmacological stress testing was found to be an independent predictor of time to death (2.7 (CI 2.0 to 3.6); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A pretest score previously validated to stratify according to angiographic outcomes, effectively risk stratified pharmacological and exercise stress patients according to the combined endpoint of cardiac death/myocardial infarction.
Authors: Ralph G Brindis; Pamela S Douglas; Robert C Hendel; Eric D Peterson; Michael J Wolk; Joseph M Allen; Manesh R Patel; Ira E Raskin; Robert C Hendel; Timothy M Bateman; Manuel D Cerqueira; Raymond J Gibbons; Linda D Gillam; John A Gillespie; Robert C Hendel; Ami E Iskandrian; Scott D Jerome; Harlan M Krumholz; Joseph V Messer; John A Spertus; Stephen A Stowers Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-10-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R J Gibbons; G J Balady; J W Beasley; J T Bricker; W F Duvernoy; V F Froelicher; D B Mark; T H Marwick; B D McCallister; P D Thompson; W L Winters; F G Yanowitz; J L Ritchie; R J Gibbons; M D Cheitlin; K A Eagle; T J Gardner; A Garson; R P Lewis; R A O'Rourke; T J Ryan Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Anthony P Morise; Marian B Olson; C Noel Bairey Merz; Sunil Mankad; William J Rogers; Carl J Pepine; Steven E Reis; Barry L Sharaf; George Sopko; Karen Smith; Gerald M Pohost; Leslee Shaw Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Mitalee P Christman; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Edward Hulten; Ekta Saksena; Jon Hainer; Hicham Skali; Raymond Y Kwong; Daniel E Forman; Sharmila Dorbala; Patrick T O'Gara; Marcelo F Di Carli; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael K Cheezum; Prem Srinivas Subramaniyam; Marcio S Bittencourt; Edward A Hulten; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Nishant R Shah; Daniel E Forman; Jon Hainer; Marcia Leavitt; Ram Padmanabhan; Hicham Skali; Sharmila Dorbala; Udo Hoffmann; Suhny Abbara; Marcelo F Di Carli; Henry Gewirtz; Ron Blankstein Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jingyi Gong; David Payne; Jesse Caron; Camden P Bay; Bradley A McGregor; Jon Hainer; Ann H Partridge; Tomas G Neilan; Marcelo Di Carli; Anju Nohria; John D Groarke Journal: JACC CardioOncol Date: 2020-11-17
Authors: Marcio S Bittencourt; Mitalee P Christman; Edward Hulten; Sanjay Divakaran; Hicham Skali; Raymond Y Kwong; Jon Hainer; Daniel E Forman; James M Kirshenbaum; Sharmila Dorbala; Marcelo F Di Carli; Ron Blankstein Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 3.133