Stress imaging. Current clinical options for the diagnosis, localization, and evaluation of coronary artery disease

Systematic overview and clinical applications of pacing atrial stress echocardiography

Pacing atrial stress echocardiography (PASE) has been studied over the past 3 decades for the evaluation of myocardial ischemia. Published studies suggest that PASE may be used as an alternative to exercise or pharmacologic stress imaging. The recent introduction of improved pacing electrodes, together with use of accelerated and shortened pacing protocols and improvements in transthoracic echocardiographic imaging techniques, makes PASE an appealing stress imaging method. A critical analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of PASE shows equivalence with other imaging stress modalities. PASE has been found to be highly feasible and accurate technique that may expedite the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with coronary artery disease. This review addresses the history, hemodynamics, protocols, accuracy, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness of PASE as well as elucidating its place among other stress modalities.

Pacing stress echocardiography: an alternative to pharmacologic stress testing

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and feasibility of bedside pacing stress echocardiography (PASE) as a potential substitute for pharmacologic stress echocardiography in patients admitted to the hospital with new-onset chest pain or worsening angina pectoris.

BACKGROUND

Accurate and rapid noninvasive identification and evaluation of the extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) is essential for optimal management of these patients.

METHODS

Bedside transthoracic stress echocardiography was performed in 54 consecutive patients admitted to a community hospital with new-onset chest pain, after acute myocardial infarction had been excluded. We used 10F transesophageal pacing catheters and a rapid and modified pacing protocol. The PASE results were validated in all patients by coronary angiography performed within 24 h of the test. Significant CAD was defined as > or =75% stenosis in at least one major epicardial coronary artery.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of PASE for identifying patients with significant CAD was 95%, specificity was 87% and accuracy was 92%. The extent of significant CAD (single- or multivessel disease) was highly concordant with coronary angiography (kappa = 0.73, p<0.001). Pacing stress echocardiography was well tolerated, and only 4% of the patients had minor adverse events. The mean rate-pressure product at peak pacing was 22,313+/-5,357 beats/min per mm Hg, and heart rate >85% of the age-predicted target was achieved in 94% of patients. The average duration of the bedside PASE test, including image interpretation, was 38+/-6 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Bedside PASE is rapid, tolerable and accurate for identification of significant CAD in patients admitted to the hospital with new-onset chest pain or worsening angina pectoris.

Transthoracic stress echocardiography with transesophageal atrial pacing for bedside evaluation of inducible myocardial ischemia in patients with new-onset chest pain

To date, there are no data on the feasibility and accuracy of bedside pacing stress echocardiography in patients admitted to the hospital with new-onset chest pain or unstable angina. We evaluated the feasibility of pacing stress echocardiography and examined its correlation with myocardial perfusion stress scintigraphy (rest thallium-201/stress technetium-99m sestamibi dual-isotope myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computerized tomography) performed within 24 hours of the pacing stress echocardiography test. We studied 70 consecutive patients after acute myocardial infarction had been excluded. The bedside pacing stress echocardiography test was performed with 10Fr transesophageal pacing catheters. We found pacing stress echocardiography to be feasible and safe (3% minor adverse event rate) at the patients' bedside. Target heart rate of >85% of the age-predicted heart rate was achieved in 96% of patients, and the mean rate-pressure product was 22,644 +/- 4,520 beats/min/mm Hg. The mean duration of the bedside pacing stress echocardiography test including technical preparations and image interpretation was 41 +/- 7 minutes. Pacing stress echocardiography and myocardial perfusion stress scintigraphy correlated well for identification or exclusion of inducible myocardial ischemia in 63 of 70 patients (90%) (kappa 0.81, p <0.001). The extent of inducible myocardial ischemia by vascular territories correlated with myocardial perfusion stress scintigraphy in 52 of 70 patients (74%) (kappa 0.6, p <0.001). We conclude that bedside pacing stress echocardiography is feasible and safe, and highly correlates with myocardial perfusion stress scintigraphy for identifying inducible myocardial ischemia in patients with new onset of chest pain or unstable angina.

Cost-effectiveness of stress-echocardiography

Because of constraints on the costs of providing medical care, cardiologists in the future will find themselves challenged to provide care for their patients in the most cost-effective manner possible. Although stress-echocardiography has been shown to compare favorably with other tests in diagnostic accuracy, data on cost-effectiveness are scarce. In this article, general concepts of cost-effectiveness as they relate to stress-echocardiography are reviewed and the available literature is summarized. Although definitive data are lacking, there is evidence to suggest that stress-echocardiography may prove to be cost-effective in several clinical situations.

Perioperative Risk Stratification in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

Adverse cardiac events during noncardiac surgery are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. As the population ages, greater numbers of patients (including the elderly) are undergoing noncardiac surgical procedures; additional emphasis must therefore be placed on effective preoperative risk assessment. On a national level, the estimated annual expenditure for this process is already $3.7 billion. There is a need for both the specialist and primary care provider to execute a safe, methodical, and cost efficient screening plan. This process should identify both the patients at highest risk and also those at lowest risk. Subsequently, the emphasis should attempt to minimize the overall risk of perioperative complications. The cornerstone of risk assessment requires meticulous history taking, a thorough physical examination, and usually a chest radiograph and an ECG. Five subsequent (basic) steps for the evaluation of patients for noncardiac surgery are outlined here in assessment of clinical markers and the pa- tient's functional capacity, risk of the surgical procedure, the need for noninvasive testing, and when appropriate, the indications for invasive testing. The AHA/ACC Practice Guidelines Committee has outlined a clinical algorithm which provides a stepwise approach to guide the clinician during the decision making process. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not to "give medical clearance" per se, but rather to evaluate the patient's current medical status, detect stress-induced ischemia in a cost effective manner, and to make recommendations about patient management throughout the entire perioperative period.