Mishita Goel1, Shubhkarman Dhillon2, Sarwan Kumar2, Vesna Tegeltija2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Ascension Providence Rochester Hospital/Wayne State University School of Medicine, 1101 W University Drive, Rochester, MI, 48307, USA. goelmishita@gmail.com. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Ascension Providence Rochester Hospital/Wayne State University School of Medicine, 1101 W University Drive, Rochester, MI, 48307, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac stress testing is a validated diagnostic tool to assess symptomatic patients with intermediate pretest probability of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, in some cases, the cardiac stress test may provide inconclusive results and the decision for further workup typically depends on the clinical judgement of the physician. These decisions can greatly affect patient outcomes. CASE PRESENTATION: We present an interesting case of a 54-year-old Caucasian male with history of tobacco use and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who presented with atypical chest pain. He had an asymptomatic electrocardiogram (EKG) stress test with intermediate probability of ischemia. Further workup with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and cardiac catheterization revealed multivessel CAD requiring a bypass surgery. In this case, the patient only had a history of tobacco use but no other significant comorbidities. He was clinically stable during his hospital stay and his testing was anticipated to be negative. However to complete workup, cardiology recommended anatomical testing with CCTA given the indeterminate EKG stress test results but the results of significant stenosis were surprising with the patient eventually requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). CONCLUSION: As a result of the availability of multiple noninvasive diagnostic tests with almost similar sensitivities for CAD, physicians often face this dilemma of choosing the right test for optimal evaluation of chest pain in patients with intermediate pretest probability of CAD. Optimal test selection requires an individualized patient approach. Our experience with this case emphasizes the role of history taking, clinical judgement, and the risk/benefit ratio in deciding further workup when faced with inconclusive stress test results. Physicians should have a lower threshold for further workup of patients with inconclusive or even negative stress test results because of the diagnostic limitations of the test. Instead, utilizing a different, anatomical test may be more valuable. Specifically, the case established the usefulness of CCTA in cases such as this where other CAD diagnostic testing is indeterminate.
BACKGROUND:Cardiac stress testing is a validated diagnostic tool to assess symptomatic patients with intermediate pretest probability of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, in some cases, the cardiac stress test may provide inconclusive results and the decision for further workup typically depends on the clinical judgement of the physician. These decisions can greatly affect patient outcomes. CASE PRESENTATION: We present an interesting case of a 54-year-old Caucasian male with history of tobacco use and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who presented with atypical chest pain. He had an asymptomatic electrocardiogram (EKG) stress test with intermediate probability of ischemia. Further workup with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and cardiac catheterization revealed multivessel CAD requiring a bypass surgery. In this case, the patient only had a history of tobacco use but no other significant comorbidities. He was clinically stable during his hospital stay and his testing was anticipated to be negative. However to complete workup, cardiology recommended anatomical testing with CCTA given the indeterminate EKG stress test results but the results of significant stenosis were surprising with the patient eventually requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). CONCLUSION: As a result of the availability of multiple noninvasive diagnostic tests with almost similar sensitivities for CAD, physicians often face this dilemma of choosing the right test for optimal evaluation of chest pain in patients with intermediate pretest probability of CAD. Optimal test selection requires an individualized patient approach. Our experience with this case emphasizes the role of history taking, clinical judgement, and the risk/benefit ratio in deciding further workup when faced with inconclusive stress test results. Physicians should have a lower threshold for further workup of patients with inconclusive or even negative stress test results because of the diagnostic limitations of the test. Instead, utilizing a different, anatomical test may be more valuable. Specifically, the case established the usefulness of CCTA in cases such as this where other CAD diagnostic testing is indeterminate.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chest pain; Coronary artery disease; Diagnosis; Stress test
Authors: W Lane Duvall; John A Savino; Elliot J Levine; Luke K Hermann; Lori B Croft; Milena J Henzlova Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mitalee P Christman; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Edward Hulten; Ekta Saksena; Jon Hainer; Hicham Skali; Raymond Y Kwong; Daniel E Forman; Sharmila Dorbala; Patrick T O'Gara; Marcelo F Di Carli; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jamieson M Bourque; George T Charlton; Benjamin H Holland; Christopher M Belyea; Denny D Watson; George A Beller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-12-04 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: J A San Román; I Vilacosta; J A Castillo; M J Rollán; V Peral; L Sánchez-Harguindey; F Fernández-Avilés Journal: Chest Date: 1996-11 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Pamela S Douglas; Udo Hoffmann; Manesh R Patel; Daniel B Mark; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Brendan Cavanaugh; Jason Cole; Rowena J Dolor; Christopher B Fordyce; Megan Huang; Muhammad Akram Khan; Andrzej S Kosinski; Mitchell W Krucoff; Vinay Malhotra; Michael H Picard; James E Udelson; Eric J Velazquez; Eric Yow; Lawton S Cooper; Kerry L Lee Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 91.245