BACKGROUND: We compared the accuracy of recovery phase images following administration of intravenous propranolol with peak stress images, for detection of coronary artery disease in patients with no resting wall motion abnormalities undergoing dobutamine stress echocardiography. METHODS: We enrolled 100 consecutive patients with no resting wall motion abnormalities who underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography. Propranolol was injected after termination of dobutamine infusion. Positive peak stress images were defined as the induction of wall motion abnormalities at any stage before propranolol injection. Positive recovery phase images were defined as maintenance or worsening of wall motion abnormalities induced at peak stress, or the appearance of new wall motion abnormalities during recovery phase. Significant coronary stenosis was defined as ≥ 50% obstruction of ≥ 1 sizable artery by coronary angiography. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (72%) had significant coronary artery disease. Analysis of peak stress images revealed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 80.6%, 85.7%, 93.5%, and 63.2%; the overall accuracy was 82%. Analysis of the recovery phase images revealed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 91.7%, 75%, 90.4%, and 77.8%; here, the overall accuracy was 87%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with no resting wall motion abnormalities, acute beta blockade during dobutamine stress echocardiography improved the sensitivity of recovery phase images for detection of significant coronary artery disease versus peak stress images, but with reduced specificity. KEY WORDS: Accuracy; Beta blocker; Coronary artery disease; Dobutamine stress echocardiography; Recovery phase images.
BACKGROUND: We compared the accuracy of recovery phase images following administration of intravenous propranolol with peak stress images, for detection of coronary artery disease in patients with no resting wall motion abnormalities undergoing dobutamine stress echocardiography. METHODS: We enrolled 100 consecutive patients with no resting wall motion abnormalities who underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography. Propranolol was injected after termination of dobutamine infusion. Positive peak stress images were defined as the induction of wall motion abnormalities at any stage before propranolol injection. Positive recovery phase images were defined as maintenance or worsening of wall motion abnormalities induced at peak stress, or the appearance of new wall motion abnormalities during recovery phase. Significant coronary stenosis was defined as ≥ 50% obstruction of ≥ 1 sizable artery by coronary angiography. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (72%) had significant coronary artery disease. Analysis of peak stress images revealed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 80.6%, 85.7%, 93.5%, and 63.2%; the overall accuracy was 82%. Analysis of the recovery phase images revealed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 91.7%, 75%, 90.4%, and 77.8%; here, the overall accuracy was 87%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with no resting wall motion abnormalities, acute beta blockade during dobutamine stress echocardiography improved the sensitivity of recovery phase images for detection of significant coronary artery disease versus peak stress images, but with reduced specificity. KEY WORDS: Accuracy; Beta blocker; Coronary artery disease; Dobutamine stress echocardiography; Recovery phase images.
Authors: Wilson Mathias; Jeane M Tsutsui; José L Andrade; Ingrid Kowatsch; Pedro A Lemos; Samira M B Leal; Bijoy K Khandheria; José F Ramires Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-05-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Michelle Bierig; Richard B Devereux; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Patricia A Pellikka; Michael H Picard; Mary J Roman; James Seward; Jack S Shanewise; Scott D Solomon; Kirk T Spencer; Martin St John Sutton; William J Stewart Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: J Baptista; M Arnese; J R Roelandt; P Fioretti; D Keane; J Escaned; E Boersma; C di Mario; P W Serruys Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Marcel L Geleijnse; Boudewijn J Krenning; Bas M van Dalen; Attila Nemes; Osama I I Soliman; Johan G Bosch; Tjebbe W Galema; Folkert J ten Cate; Eric Boersma Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2009-09-18 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: M J Kern; P Ganz; J D Horowitz; J Gaspar; W H Barry; B H Lorell; W Grossman; G H Mudge Journal: Circulation Date: 1983-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stefanos E Karagiannis; Abdou Elhendy; Harm H H Feringa; Ron van Domburg; Jeroen J Bax; Radosav Vidakovic; Dennis V Cokkinos; Don Poldermans Journal: Coron Artery Dis Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 1.439