Relative diagnostic, prognostic and economic value of stress echocardiography versus exercise electrocardiography as initial investigation for the detection of coronary artery disease in patients with new onset suspected angina

The optimal diagnostic strategies for patient with coronary artery diseases and stable chest pain syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Numerous invasive and noninvasive diagnostic tests with different cost and effectiveness exist for detection of coronary artery disease. This diversity leads to unnecessary utilization of health services. For this reason, this study focused on the cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies for coronary artery disease from the perspective of the health care system with 1-year time horizon.

Results

Incremental cost effectiveness ratios of all strategies were less than the threshold except for the electrocardiography-computed tomography angiography-coronary angiography strategy, and cost of the cardiac magnetic resonance imaging-based strategy was higher than the cost of other strategies. Also, the number of correct diagnosis in the electrocardiography-coronary angiography strategy was higher than the other strategies, and its ICER was 15.197 dollars per additional correct diagnosis. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis found that the probability of doing MRI and sensitivity of the exercise electrocardiography had impact on the results.

Conclusion

The most cost-effective strategy for acute patient is ECG-CA strategy, and for chronic patient, the most cost-effective strategies are electrocardiography-single photon emission computed tomography-coronary angiography and electrocardiography-exercise electrocardiography-coronary angiography. Applying these strategies in the same clinical settings may lead to a better utilization of resources.

Prognostic impact of stress echocardiography with discordant stress electrocardiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease

INTRODUCTION

During stress echocardiography, the echocardiologist routinely collects both echocardiographic images and stress electrocardiogram (ECG) concurrently. The managing physician faces a dilemma when the stress ECG and stress echocardiography results are discordant; for example, when a patient has negative stress echocardiography but positive stress ECG. We therefore sought to evaluate the prognostic value of stress echocardiography in relation to concordant or discordant stress ECG findings in our local Singapore setting, which has a well-defined Southeast Asian population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of all patients who underwent stress echocardiography in 2012 at Changi General Hospital, Singapore. All study patients were followed up for 18 months via electronic medical records.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) outcome of patients with normal stress echocardiography and normal stress ECG (reference group) as compared with patients with normal stress echocardiography but positive (discordant) stress ECG (odds ratio 2.02, 95% confidence interval 0.82‒4.98; p = 0.125).

CONCLUSION

This study will help to reassure cardiologists that discordant results (negative stress echocardiography but positive stress ECG) do not portend a higher risk of MACE when compared to concordant results (i.e. both stress echocardiography and stress ECG are negative).

Risk stratification for coronary artery disease in multi-ethnic populations: Are there broader considerations for cost efficiency?

Coronary artery disease (CAD) screening and diagnosis are core cardiac specialty services. From symptoms, autopsy correlations supported reductions in coronary blood flow and dynamic epicardial and microcirculatory coronaries artery disease as etiologies. While angina remains a clinical diagnosis, most cases require correlation with a diagnostic modality. At the onset of the evidence building process much research, now factored into guidelines were conducted among population and demographics that were homogenous and often prior to newer technologies being available. Today we see a more diverse multi-ethnic population whose characteristics and risks may not consistently match the populations from which guideline evidence is derived. While it would seem very unlikely that for the majority, scientific arguments against guidelines would differ, however from a translational perspective, there will be populations who differ and importantly there are cost-efficacy questions, e.g., the most suitable first-line tests or what parameters equate to an adequate test. This article reviews non-invasive diagnosis of CAD within the context of multi-ethnic patient populations.

Clinical practice of contrast echocardiography: recommendation by the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) 2017

Contrast echocardiography is widely used in cardiology. It is applied to improve image quality, reader confidence and reproducibility both for assessing left ventricular (LV) structure and function at rest and for assessing global and regional function in stress echocardiography. The use of contrast in echocardiography has now extended beyond cardiac structure and function assessment to evaluation of perfusion both of the myocardium and of the intracardiac structures. Safety of contrast agents have now been addressed in large patient population and these studies clearly established its excellent safety profile. This document, based on clinical trials, randomized and multicentre studies and published clinical experience, has established clear recommendations for the use of contrast in various clinical conditions with evidence-based protocols.