Comparison of treadmill exercise echocardiography before and after exercise in the evaluation of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease

Citation
J. Peteiro et al., Comparison of treadmill exercise echocardiography before and after exercise in the evaluation of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease, J AM S ECHO, 12(12), 1999, pp. 1073-1079
Citations number
27
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems
Journal title
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY
ISSN journal
08947317 → ACNP
Volume
12
Issue
12
Year of publication
1999
Pages
1073 - 1079
Database
ISI
SICI code
0894-7317(199912)12:12<1073:COTEEB>2.0.ZU;2-5
Abstract
Objectives: We sought to compare the feasibility and accuracy of peak tread mill exercise echocardiography versus postexercise echocardiography imaging . Background: Although peak exercise echocardiography has been reported for b oth supine and orthostatic bicycle exercise and has shown higher sensitivit y than postexercise imaging, acquiring images at peak exercise with treadmi ll has not been explored. Methods: Peak and post-treadmill exercise echocardiography and coronary ang iography mere performed on 89 patients with known or suspected coronary art ery disease, Positive exercise echocardiography was defined as necrosis or ischemic response, Positive coronary angiography was defined as greater tha n or equal to 1 diseased vessels (greater than or equal to 50% luminal narr owing). Images were analyzed in a blind manner by an expert observer. Results: Postexercise images were acquired within 80 seconds after exercise (40 +/- 14). Mean heart rate (bpm) was 139 +/- 22 at peak versus 118 +/- 2 5 at postexercise imaging (P < .001). Interpretable peak and postexercise i mages were obtained for all 89 patients, Of the 72 classified as having pos itive exercise echocardiography, 23 had new regional wall motion abnormalit y at peak (21 with positive angiography), which resolved at postexercise im aging. Sensitivity was higher with peak than with postexercise imaging (94% vs 73%, P < .001). Specificity was similar (68% vs 79%), as mas predictive positive value (92% vs 93%). Negative predictive value was again higher wi th peak imaging (76% vs 44%, P < .05). Total accuracy was higher with peak imaging (89% vs 74%, P < .05). Conclusions: Peak treadmill exercise echocardiography is technically feasib le and has higher sensitivity and accuracy than post-treadmill exercise ech ocardiography. Therefore in the clinical setting peak exercise echocardiogr aphy should be performed to diagnose ischemia.