Melissa A Daubert1,2, Joseph Sivak3, Allison Dunning2, Pamela S Douglas1,2, Brian Coyne1, Tracy Y Wang1,2, Daniel B Mark1,2, Eric J Velazquez4. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Abstract
Importance: Patients with abnormal (positive) exercise electrocardiography, but normal stress echocardiography (+ECG/-Echo) are commonly encountered in clinical practice; however, the prognostic significance of this discordant result is unclear. Objective: To determine whether patients with +ECG/-Echo have a higher rate of adverse clinical events and a poorer prognosis than patients with negative exercise ECG and normal stress Echo imaging (-ECG/-Echo). Design, Setting, and Participants: Between January 1, 2000, and February 28, 2014, a total of 47 944 consecutive patients without known coronary artery disease who underwent exercise stress Echo at Duke University Medical Center were evaluated for inclusion in this observational cohort study. Data analysis was conducted from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016. Interventions/Exposures: Patients were categorized as having -ECG/-Echo, +ECG/-Echo, or +Echo (-ECG/+Echo and +ECG/+Echo). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual adverse events and downstream testing. Results: After excluding submaximal tests and nondiagnostic ECG or stress imaging results, 15 077 patients (mean [SD] age, 52 [13] years; 6228 [41.3%] men) were classified by stress test results. Of these, 12 893 patients (85.5%) had -ECG/-Echo, 1286 patients (8.5%) had +ECG/-Echo, and 898 patients (6.0%) had +Echo. Through a median follow-up of 7.3 (interquartile range, 4.4-10.0) years, the composite end point occurred in 794 patients with -ECG/-Echo (8.5%), 142 patients with +ECG/-Echo (14.6%), and 297 patients with +Echo (37.4%). Death occurred in 425 patients with -ECG/-Echo (4.8%), 50 patients with +ECG/-Echo (5.9%), and 70 patients with +Echo (11.2%). Myocardial infarction occurred in 195 patients with -ECG/-Echo (2.2%), 31 patients with +ECG/-Echo (3.6%), and 59 patients with +Echo (8.7%). The addition of stress ECG findings to clinical and exercise data yielded incremental prognostic value. Patients with -ECG/-Echo imaging results had the least downstream testing (2.3%), followed by +ECG/-Echo (12.8%), and +Echo (33.6%) (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The presence of +ECG results with normal stress Echo imaging may identify a population of patients who are at slightly increased risk for adverse cardiac events, which was not previously recognized. Further study is needed to determine whether these patients will benefit from intensification of medical management.
Importance: Patients with abnormal (positive) exercise electrocardiography, but normal stress echocardiography (+ECG/-Echo) are commonly encountered in clinical practice; however, the prognostic significance of this discordant result is unclear. Objective: To determine whether patients with +ECG/-Echo have a higher rate of adverse clinical events and a poorer prognosis than patients with negative exercise ECG and normal stress Echo imaging (-ECG/-Echo). Design, Setting, and Participants: Between January 1, 2000, and February 28, 2014, a total of 47 944 consecutive patients without known coronary artery disease who underwent exercise stress Echo at Duke University Medical Center were evaluated for inclusion in this observational cohort study. Data analysis was conducted from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016. Interventions/Exposures: Patients were categorized as having -ECG/-Echo, +ECG/-Echo, or +Echo (-ECG/+Echo and +ECG/+Echo). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual adverse events and downstream testing. Results: After excluding submaximal tests and nondiagnostic ECG or stress imaging results, 15 077 patients (mean [SD] age, 52 [13] years; 6228 [41.3%] men) were classified by stress test results. Of these, 12 893 patients (85.5%) had -ECG/-Echo, 1286 patients (8.5%) had +ECG/-Echo, and 898 patients (6.0%) had +Echo. Through a median follow-up of 7.3 (interquartile range, 4.4-10.0) years, the composite end point occurred in 794 patients with -ECG/-Echo (8.5%), 142 patients with +ECG/-Echo (14.6%), and 297 patients with +Echo (37.4%). Death occurred in 425 patients with -ECG/-Echo (4.8%), 50 patients with +ECG/-Echo (5.9%), and 70 patients with +Echo (11.2%). Myocardial infarction occurred in 195 patients with -ECG/-Echo (2.2%), 31 patients with +ECG/-Echo (3.6%), and 59 patients with +Echo (8.7%). The addition of stress ECG findings to clinical and exercise data yielded incremental prognostic value. Patients with -ECG/-Echo imaging results had the least downstream testing (2.3%), followed by +ECG/-Echo (12.8%), and +Echo (33.6%) (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The presence of +ECG results with normal stress Echo imaging may identify a population of patients who are at slightly increased risk for adverse cardiac events, which was not previously recognized. Further study is needed to determine whether these patients will benefit from intensification of medical management.
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: R B McCully; V L Roger; D W Mahoney; B L Karon; J K Oh; F A Miller; J B Seward; P A Pellikka Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R Hoffmann; H Lethen; T Marwick; R Rambaldi; P Fioretti; A Pingitore; E Picano; T Buck; R Erbel; F A Flachskampf; P Hanrath Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1998-12-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Alberto Bouzas-Mosquera; Jesús Peteiro; Nemesio Alvarez-García; Francisco J Broullón; Victor X Mosquera; Lourdes García-Bueno; Luis Ferro; Alfonso Castro-Beiras Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Diana M Lopez; Sanjay Divakaran; Ankur Gupta; Navkaranbir S Bajaj; Michael T Osborne; Wunan Zhou; Jon Hainer; Courtney F Bibbo; Hicham Skali; Sharmila Dorbala; Viviany R Taqueti; Ron Blankstein; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-08-18