BACKGROUND: Current guidelines support exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) for evaluation of suspected obstructive coronary artery disease (OCAD) in ambulant patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Data regarding the diagnostic utility of ESE in patients with LBBB are limited. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that the diagnostic performance of ESE for the assessment of suspected OCAD is reduced in the context of LBBB. METHODS: We studied 191 consecutive patients with resting LBBB undergoing ESE for the investigation of suspected OCAD between 2008 and 2015 at our center. The studies were categorized as inconclusive, normal, or abnormal. Patients with an abnormal response were subcategorized as regional ischemic response or globally abnormal. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (43%) demonstrated a normal left ventricular contractile response (LVCR) to exercise; 92 (48%) developed an abnormal LVCR to exercise, including 70 patients with globally abnormal and 22 patients with regional ischemic responses. Of the patients with abnormal responses, 62 patients had anatomic imaging, only 29 of whom had significant OCAD, conferring an overall specificity of ESE for significant OCAD of 21% and accuracy of 52%. Of patients who developed a regionally abnormal response, 89% had significant OCAD. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LBBB who develop a globally abnormal LVCR during ESE, the specificity of ESE for reliably excluding significant OCAD is significantly reduced. ESE appears to be a suboptimal test for the evaluation of OCAD in patients with resting LBBB, as about 50% of patients will have an abnormal response, the majority due to globally abnormal contraction where OCAD cannot be reliably diagnosed. Alternative testing should be considered for the investigation of suspected OCAD in patients with resting LBBB.
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines support exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) for evaluation of suspected obstructive coronary artery disease (OCAD) in ambulant patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Data regarding the diagnostic utility of ESE in patients with LBBB are limited. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that the diagnostic performance of ESE for the assessment of suspected OCAD is reduced in the context of LBBB. METHODS: We studied 191 consecutive patients with resting LBBB undergoing ESE for the investigation of suspected OCAD between 2008 and 2015 at our center. The studies were categorized as inconclusive, normal, or abnormal. Patients with an abnormal response were subcategorized as regional ischemic response or globally abnormal. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (43%) demonstrated a normal left ventricular contractile response (LVCR) to exercise; 92 (48%) developed an abnormal LVCR to exercise, including 70 patients with globally abnormal and 22 patients with regional ischemic responses. Of the patients with abnormal responses, 62 patients had anatomic imaging, only 29 of whom had significant OCAD, conferring an overall specificity of ESE for significant OCAD of 21% and accuracy of 52%. Of patients who developed a regionally abnormal response, 89% had significant OCAD. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LBBB who develop a globally abnormal LVCR during ESE, the specificity of ESE for reliably excluding significant OCAD is significantly reduced. ESE appears to be a suboptimal test for the evaluation of OCAD in patients with resting LBBB, as about 50% of patients will have an abnormal response, the majority due to globally abnormal contraction where OCAD cannot be reliably diagnosed. Alternative testing should be considered for the investigation of suspected OCAD in patients with resting LBBB.
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: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Armin Arbab-Zadeh; Julie M Miller; Carlos E Rochitte; Marc Dewey; Hiroyuki Niinuma; Ilan Gottlieb; Narinder Paul; Melvin E Clouse; Edward P Shapiro; John Hoe; Albert C Lardo; David E Bush; Albert de Roos; Christopher Cox; Jeffrey Brinker; Joăo A C Lima Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jong-Won Ha; Eldyn M Juracan; Douglas W Mahoney; Jae K Oh; Clarence Shub; James B Seward; Patricia A Pellikka Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-01-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D W Sohn; I H Chai; D J Lee; H C Kim; H S Kim; B H Oh; M M Lee; Y B Park; Y S Choi; J D Seo; Y W Lee Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Benjamin J W Chow; Arun Abraham; George A Wells; Li Chen; Terrence D Ruddy; Yeung Yam; Nayia Govas; Phoebe Diane Galbraith; Carole Dennie; Rob S Beanlands Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Carlos Alberto Cotrim; Hugo Café; Isabel João; Nuno Cotrim; Jorge Guardado; Pedro Cordeiro; Hortense Cotrim; Luis Baquero Journal: World J Cardiol Date: 2022-02-26