PURPOSE: Previous literature suggests that myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) adds little to the prognosis of patients who exercise >10 metabolic equivalents (METs) during stress testing. With this in mind, we prospectively tested a provisional injection protocol in emergency department (ED) patients presenting for the evaluation of chest pain in which a patient would not receive an injection of radioisotope if adequate exercise was achieved without symptoms and a negative ECG response. METHODS: All patients who presented to the ED over a 5-year period who were referred for stress testing as part of their ED evaluation were included. Patients considered for a provisional protocol were: exercise stress, age <65 years, no known coronary artery disease, and an interpretable rest ECG. Criteria for not injecting included a maximal predicted heart rate ≥85%, ≥10 METs of exercise, no anginal symptoms during stress, and no ECG changes. Groups were compared based on stress test results, all-cause and cardiac mortality, follow-up cardiac testing, subsequent revascularization, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 965 patients were eligible with 192 undergoing exercise-only and 773 having perfusion imaging. After 41.6 ± 19.6 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was similar in the exercise-only versus the exercise plus imaging group (2.6% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.59). There were no cardiac deaths in the exercise-only group. At 1 year there was no difference in the number of repeat functional stress tests (1.6% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.43), fewer angiograms (0% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.002), and a significantly lower cost ($65 ± $332 vs $506 ± $1,991, p = 0.002; values are in US dollars) in the exercise-only group. The radiation exposure in the exercise plus imaging group was 8.4 ± 2.1 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: A provisional injection protocol has a very low mortality, few follow-up diagnostic tests, and lower cost compared to standard imaging protocols. If adopted it would decrease radiation exposure, save time and decrease health-care costs without jeopardizing prognosis.
PURPOSE: Previous literature suggests that myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) adds little to the prognosis of patients who exercise >10 metabolic equivalents (METs) during stress testing. With this in mind, we prospectively tested a provisional injection protocol in emergency department (ED) patients presenting for the evaluation of chest pain in which a patient would not receive an injection of radioisotope if adequate exercise was achieved without symptoms and a negative ECG response. METHODS: All patients who presented to the ED over a 5-year period who were referred for stress testing as part of their ED evaluation were included. Patients considered for a provisional protocol were: exercise stress, age <65 years, no known coronary artery disease, and an interpretable rest ECG. Criteria for not injecting included a maximal predicted heart rate ≥85%, ≥10 METs of exercise, no anginal symptoms during stress, and no ECG changes. Groups were compared based on stress test results, all-cause and cardiac mortality, follow-up cardiac testing, subsequent revascularization, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 965 patients were eligible with 192 undergoing exercise-only and 773 having perfusion imaging. After 41.6 ± 19.6 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was similar in the exercise-only versus the exercise plus imaging group (2.6% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.59). There were no cardiac deaths in the exercise-only group. At 1 year there was no difference in the number of repeat functional stress tests (1.6% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.43), fewer angiograms (0% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.002), and a significantly lower cost ($65 ± $332 vs $506 ± $1,991, p = 0.002; values are in US dollars) in the exercise-only group. The radiation exposure in the exercise plus imaging group was 8.4 ± 2.1 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: A provisional injection protocol has a very low mortality, few follow-up diagnostic tests, and lower cost compared to standard imaging protocols. If adopted it would decrease radiation exposure, save time and decrease health-care costs without jeopardizing prognosis.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2002 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Christopher L Hansen; Richard A Goldstein; Daniel S Berman; Keith B Churchwell; C David Cooke; James R Corbett; S James Cullom; Seth T Dahlberg; James R Galt; Ravi K Garg; Gary V Heller; Mark C Hyun; Lynne L Johnson; April Mann; Benjamin D McCallister; Raymond Taillefer; R Parker Ward; John J Mahmarian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Xingping Kang; Piotr J Slomka; James Gerlach; Ling de Yang; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Louise E J Thomson; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Stephan D Fihn; Julius M Gardin; Jonathan Abrams; Kathleen Berra; James C Blankenship; Apostolos P Dallas; Pamela S Douglas; Joanne M Foody; Thomas C Gerber; Alan L Hinderliter; Spencer B King; Paul D Kligfield; Harlan M Krumholz; Raymond Y K Kwong; Michael J Lim; Jane A Linderbaum; Michael J Mack; Mark A Munger; Richard L Prager; Joseph F Sabik; Leslee J Shaw; Joanna D Sikkema; Craig R Smith; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Sankey V Williams Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Douglas S Lee; Flavia Verocai; Mansoor Husain; Darar Al Khdair; Xuesong Wang; Michael Freeman; Robert M Iwanochko Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Robert C Hendel; Gary V Heller; Salvador Borges-Neto; Manuel Cerqueira; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008-09-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Nowell M Fine; Patricia A Pellikka; Christopher G Scott; S Michael Gharacholou; Robert B McCully Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 7.616