Patrick Daly1, Regina Kayse2, Steven Rudick2, Nathan Robbins2, Jennifer Scheler3, David Harris2, Robert O'Donnell2, Alok K Dwivedi4, Myron C Gerson2. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Health and Disease, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, MLC 0542, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA. dalypk@ucmail.uc.edu. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Health and Disease, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, MLC 0542, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA. 3. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 4. Division of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exercise is the AHA/ACC guideline-recommended stress modality for myocardial perfusion imaging, but many patients are unable to exercise to target heart rate on a conventional treadmill. We examined the feasibility and safety of stress imaging using an anti-gravity treadmill in patients with perceived poor exercise capacity. METHODS AND RESULTS: 49 patients were recruited for stress testing by anti-gravity treadmill (n = 29) or to a regadenoson control group (n = 20). Seventeen anti-gravity test patients (59%) reached target heart rate obviating the need for a pharmacologic stress agent. Adverse effects of the anti-gravity treadmill were limited to minor muscle aches in 5 subjects. Stress myocardial perfusion image quality judged by 3 blinded readers on a 5-point scale was comparable for the anti-gravity treadmill (4.30 ± SD 0.87) vs pharmacologic stress (4.28 ± SD 0.66). CONCLUSION: Stress testing using an anti-gravity treadmill is feasible and may help some patients safely achieve target heart rate.
BACKGROUND: Exercise is the AHA/ACC guideline-recommended stress modality for myocardial perfusion imaging, but many patients are unable to exercise to target heart rate on a conventional treadmill. We examined the feasibility and safety of stress imaging using an anti-gravity treadmill in patients with perceived poor exercise capacity. METHODS AND RESULTS: 49 patients were recruited for stress testing by anti-gravity treadmill (n = 29) or to a regadenoson control group (n = 20). Seventeen anti-gravity test patients (59%) reached target heart rate obviating the need for a pharmacologic stress agent. Adverse effects of the anti-gravity treadmill were limited to minor muscle aches in 5 subjects. Stress myocardial perfusion image quality judged by 3 blinded readers on a 5-point scale was comparable for the anti-gravity treadmill (4.30 ± SD 0.87) vs pharmacologic stress (4.28 ± SD 0.66). CONCLUSION: Stress testing using an anti-gravity treadmill is feasible and may help some patients safely achieve target heart rate.