Jacob P Kelly1, Brian J Andonian2, Mahesh J Patel3, Zhen Huang4, Linda K Shaw4, Robert W McGarrah5, Salvador Borges-Neto6, Eric J Velazquez1, William E Kraus7. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 2. Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Durham, NC. Electronic address: brian.andonian@duke.edu. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Merck Research Laboratories, Rahway, NJ. 4. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke Medicine, Durham, NC. 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Durham, NC. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Durham, NC. 7. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Durham, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify temporal trends in the use of exercise treadmill testing (ETT) and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) estimated by ETT in metabolic equivalents (METs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compiled an ETT database of all available treadmill tests-including those with concomitant stress echocardiography and nuclear perfusion imaging studies-performed at Duke University Hospital from January 1, 1970- December 31, 2012. Six different ramp protocols were used in these combined modalities. CRF at maximal exertion was estimated using established metrics. Eligible patients were required to have no missing data on maximal treadmill speed, grade, and protocol. RESULTS: The most commonly used ETT protocol was the Bruce (n = 28,877), followed by manual test (n = 7390). Since the 1980's, the use of ETT for clinical purposes declined substantially; there was a decreased trend in utilization of 9.4% over the decades 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. When standard protocol (Bruce) was assessed in isolation, trends in CRF decreased progressively from 1970 to 2012 (mean METs (standard deviation): 11.7 (4.3) to 10.5 (3.5)). After adjusting for baseline comorbidities, the trend was reduced to a lesser degree. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ETT at our institution has declined over time, perhaps due to changes in clinical practice. In patients undergoing ETT using the standard Bruce protocol, CRF decreased progressively over the last five decades. Future studies are needed to clarify the etiology of the decrease in use of such a powerful predictor of clinical outcomes in our medical care environment.
OBJECTIVE: To identify temporal trends in the use of exercise treadmill testing (ETT) and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) estimated by ETT in metabolic equivalents (METs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compiled an ETT database of all available treadmill tests-including those with concomitant stress echocardiography and nuclear perfusion imaging studies-performed at Duke University Hospital from January 1, 1970- December 31, 2012. Six different ramp protocols were used in these combined modalities. CRF at maximal exertion was estimated using established metrics. Eligible patients were required to have no missing data on maximal treadmill speed, grade, and protocol. RESULTS: The most commonly used ETT protocol was the Bruce (n = 28,877), followed by manual test (n = 7390). Since the 1980's, the use of ETT for clinical purposes declined substantially; there was a decreased trend in utilization of 9.4% over the decades 1990-1999 and 2000-2009. When standard protocol (Bruce) was assessed in isolation, trends in CRF decreased progressively from 1970 to 2012 (mean METs (standard deviation): 11.7 (4.3) to 10.5 (3.5)). After adjusting for baseline comorbidities, the trend was reduced to a lesser degree. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ETT at our institution has declined over time, perhaps due to changes in clinical practice. In patients undergoing ETT using the standard Bruce protocol, CRF decreased progressively over the last five decades. Future studies are needed to clarify the etiology of the decrease in use of such a powerful predictor of clinical outcomes in our medical care environment.
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: Jerome L Fleg; Christopher H Morrell; Angelo G Bos; Larry J Brant; Laura A Talbot; Jeanette G Wright; Edward G Lakatta Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-07-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Edward W Gregg; Yiling J Cheng; Betsy L Cadwell; Giuseppina Imperatore; Desmond E Williams; Katherine M Flegal; K M Venkat Narayan; David F Williamson Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-04-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Susan G Lakoski; Benjamin L Willis; Carolyn E Barlow; David Leonard; Ang Gao; Nina B Radford; Stephen W Farrell; Pamela S Douglas; Jarett D Berry; Laura F DeFina; Lee W Jones Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Yolande Appelman; Bas B van Rijn; Monique E Ten Haaf; Eric Boersma; Sanne A E Peters Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Gary J Balady; Martin G Larson; Ramachandran S Vasan; Eric P Leip; Christopher J O'Donnell; Daniel Levy Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-09-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ross Arena; Jonathan Myers; Joshua Abella; Sherry Pinkstaff; Peter Brubaker; Brian Moore; Dalane Kitzman; Mary Ann Peberdy; Daniel Bensimhon; Paul Chase; Daniel Forman; Erin West; Marco Guazzi Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Earl S Ford; Umed A Ajani; Janet B Croft; Julia A Critchley; Darwin R Labarthe; Thomas E Kottke; Wayne H Giles; Simon Capewell Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-06-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lisa S Chow; Andrew O Odegaard; Tyler A Bosch; Anne E Bantle; Qi Wang; John Hughes; Mercedes Carnethon; Katherine H Ingram; Nefertiti Durant; Cora E Lewis; Justin Ryder; Christina M Shay; Aaron S Kelly; Pamela J Schreiner Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 10.460
Authors: Matthew P Harber; McKenzie Metz; James E Peterman; Mitchell H Whaley; Bradley S Fleenor; Leonard A Kaminsky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240