Marked differences between patients referred for stress echocardiography and myocardial perfusion imaging studies

Cardiovascular outcomes after pharmacologic stress myocardial perfusion imaging

BACKGROUND

While pharmacologic stress single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT-MPI) is used for noninvasive evaluation of patients who are unable to perform treadmill exercise, its impact on net reclassification improvement (NRI) of prognosis is unknown.

METHODS

We evaluated the prognostic value of pharmacologic stress MPI for prediction of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) within 1 year at a single-center, university-based laboratory. We examined continuous and categorical NRI of pharmacologic SPECT-MPI for prediction of outcomes beyond clinical factors alone.

RESULTS

Six thousand two hundred forty patients (median age 66 years [IQR 56-74], 3466 men) were studied and followed for 5963 person-years. SPECT-MPI variables associated with increased risk of cardiovascular death or non-fatal MI included summed stress score, stress ST-shift, and post-stress resting left ventricular ejection fraction ≤50%. Compared to a clinical model which included age, sex, cardiovascular disease, risk factors, and medications, model χ(2) (210.5 vs. 281.9, P < .001) and c-statistic (0.74 vs. 0.78, P < .001) were significantly increased by addition of SPECT-MPI predictors (summed stress score, stress ST-shift and stress resting left ventricular ejection fraction). SPECT-MPI predictors increased continuous NRI by 49.4% (P < .001), reclassifying 66.5% of patients as lower risk and 32.8% as higher risk of cardiovascular death or non-fatal MI. Addition of MPI predictors to clinical factors using risk categories, defined as <1%, 1% to 3%, and >3% annualized risk of cardiovascular death or non-fatal MI, yielded a 15.0% improvement in NRI (95% CI 7.6%-27.6%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacologic stress MPI substantially improved net reclassification of cardiovascular death or MI risk beyond that afforded by clinical factors.

Impact of choice of imaging modality accompanying outpatient exercise stress testing on outcomes and resource use after revascularization for acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Exercise stress testing is commonly obtained after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We compared the relationships between exercise echocardiography and nuclear testing after ACS-related PCI on outcomes and resource use.

METHODS

Longitudinal observational study using fee-for-service Medicare claims to identify patients undergoing outpatient exercise stress testing with imaging within 15 months after PCI performed for ACS between 2003 and 2004.

RESULTS

Of 63,100 patients undergoing stress testing 3 to 15 months post-PCI, 31,731 (50.3%) underwent an exercise stress test with imaging. Among 29,279 patients undergoing exercise stress testing with imaging, 15.5% received echocardiography. Echocardiography recipients had higher rates of repeat stress testing (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.60, CI 2.19-3.10) compared with those undergoing nuclear imaging in the 90 days after testing, but lower rates of revascularization (adjusted HR 0.87, CI 0.76-0.98) and coronary angiography (adjusted HR 0.88, CI 0.80-0.97). None of these differences persisted subsequent to 90 days after stress testing. Rates of death and readmission for myocardial infarction rates were similar. Total Medicare payments were lower initially after echocardiography (incremental difference $498, CI 488-507), an effect attributed primarily to lower reimbursement for the stress test itself, but not significantly different after 14 months after testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study using administrative data, echocardiography recipients initially had fewer invasive procedures but higher rates of repeat testing than nuclear testing recipients. However, these differences between echo and nuclear testing did not persist over longer time frames.

Application of appropriate use criteria for stress myocardial perfusion imaging at two academic medical centers: compliance and association with image findings

PURPOSE

Explore the extent to which stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) studies for coronary heart disease detection met published appropriate use criteria (AUC), and the association between AUC classification and image findings.

DATA SOURCES

Retrospective, descriptive review of stress studies performed at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC n= 1377) and the Veterans Health Administration of Puget Sound (VA n= 1445) in the 31 months following AUC publication.

CONCLUSIONS

At UWMC and VA, 69% and 89% of MPI studies, respectively, were classified as appropriate, 16% and 3% as inappropriate, and 15% and 8% as uncertain. All differences were significant, p < .001. At UWMC, 11% of appropriate studies and 10% of inappropriate or uncertain studies were abnormal (demonstrating myocardial ischemia or myocardial infarction), p= .93; these analyses were not performed on VA studies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Most studies at both sites were classified as appropriate. At UWMC, the likelihood of a study classified as appropriate demonstrating an abnormality was not significantly different from a study classified as uncertain or inappropriate. AUC are imperfect tools but are increasingly created and referenced; as such, it is vital that practicing nurse practitioners are knowledgeable about their creation, application, and evaluation.

Variations in the referral patterns to stress nuclear imaging and stress echocardiography scans

BACKGROUND

Stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and stress echocardiography (Echo) are commonly used for the noninvasive evaluation of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Very few studies have compared the referral patterns to these imaging modalities in terms of the clinical profile of patients, reasons for referral, and type of referring physicians.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a prospective study of 1,020 consecutive patients who were referred for stress MPI (429 patients) or stress Echo (591 patients) at the American University of Beirut Medical Center in the year of 2008. Patients referred to MPI were older and had a higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, and previous myocardial infarction, coronary angioplasty, or bypass surgery. There were more abnormal scans in the stress MPI group (24% vs 15%, P < 0.001), as well as a higher prevalence of ischemia (15% vs 7.6%, P < 0.001) and impaired left ventricular function with an ejection fraction <50% (11% vs 1.7%, P < 0.001). A higher percentage of stress Echo studies were self-referred by physicians who themselves interpret the scans (31% vs 19%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients referred for stress MPI are at a higher risk than those referred for stress Echo having more CAD risk factors, more prior history of coronary events, and an older age. These findings have important implications in the interpretation of studies that compare the diagnostic and prognostic power of these two imaging modalities.