Prognostic Implications of Stress Echocardiography and Impact on Patient Outcomes: An Effective Gatekeeper for Coronary Angiography and Revascularization

Noninvasive Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Imaging

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite remarkable advances in the management of coronary artery disease, the prediction of adverse coronary events remains challenging. Over the preceding decades, considerable effort has been made to improve risk stratification using noninvasive imaging. Recently, these efforts have increasingly focused on the direct imaging of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Modern imaging now allows imaging of coronary plaque burden, plaque type, atherosclerotic plaque activity, and plaque thrombosis, which have major potential to refine patient risk stratification, aid decision making, and advance future clinical practice.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Stress-echocardiography or coronary computed tomography in suspected chronic coronary syndrome after the 2019 European Guidelines? A practical guide

Stress-echocardiography can rightly be considered one of the champions of cardiac functional imaging, thanks to its real-time imaging, high temporal resolution, high safety and very low cost. When stress-echocardiography is performed at top technical quality, hence taking advantage of ultrasound contrast media for endocardial border delineation at least for suboptimal cases, subjectivity is minimized, and with the routine use of coronary flow reserve measurement (left anterior descending coronary artery, stress/rest ratio reduced or normal, i.e. <>2.0) diagnostic sensitivity is strengthened. The true competitor of any type of functional imaging, stress-echocardiography included, is nowadays coronary computed tomography angiography, which is instead a diagnostic method directly, noninvasively assessing coronary anatomy, apparently the holy grail for any cardiologist. The new 2019 Guidelines on chronic coronary syndrome of the European Society of Cardiology change the existing landscape and clinical practice, while they probably cannot clarify which type of test, functional or anatomic, should be first chosen in different clinical scenarios of suspected chronic coronary syndrome. We review the existing data and the authors' personal view in order to assess how functional stress-echocardiography compares with coronary computed tomography angiography regarding three main aspects: diagnosis of coronary artery disease, guidance of therapy (coronary revascularization versus medical therapy) and risk stratification.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Prognostic value of left atrial size in hypertensive African Americans undergoing stress echocardiography

BACKGROUND

Left atrial (LA) enlargement is a marker of increased risk in the general population undergoing stress echocardiography. African American (AA) patients with hypertension are known to have less atrial remodeling than whites with hypertension. The prognostic impact of LA enlargement in AA with hypertension undergoing stress echocardiography is uncertain.

AIM

To investigate the prognostic value of LA size in hypertensive AA patients undergoing stress echocardiography.

METHODS

This retrospective outcomes study enrolled 583 consecutive hypertensive AA patients who underwent stress echocardiography over a 2.5-year period. Clinical characteristics including cardiovascular risk factors, stress and echocardiographic data were collected from the electronic health record of a large community hospital. Treadmill exercise and Dobutamine protocols were conducted based on standard practices. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality. The optimal cutoff value of antero-posterior LA diameter for mortality was assessed by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Cox regression was used to determine variables associated with outcome.

RESULTS

The mean age was 57 ± 12 years. LA dilatation was present in 9% (54) of patients (LA anteroposterior ≥ 2.4 cm/m²). There were 85 deaths (15%) during 4.5 ± 1.7 years of follow-up. LA diameter indexed for body surface area had an area under the curve of 0.72 ± 0.03 (optimal cut-point of 2.05 cm/m²). Variables independently associated with mortality included age [P = 0.004, hazard ratio (HR) 1.34 (1.10-1.64)], tobacco use [P = 0.001, HR 2.59 (1.51-4.44)], left ventricular hypertrophy [P = 0.001 , HR 2.14 (1.35-3.39)], Dobutamine stress [P = 0.003, HR 2.12 (1.29-3.47)], heart failure history [P = 0.031, HR 1.76 (1.05-2.94)], LA diameter ≥ 2.05 cm/m² [P = 0.027, HR 1.73 (1.06-2.82)], and an abnormal stress echocardiogram [P = 0.033, HR 1.67 (1.04-2.68)]. LA diameter as a continuous variable was also independently associated with mortality but LA size ≥ 2.40 cm/m² was not.

CONCLUSION

LA enlargement is infrequent in hypertensive AA patients when traditional reference values are used. LA enlargement is independently associated with mortality when a lower than “normal” threshold (≥ 2.05 cm/m²) is used.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity

BACKGROUND

The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy.

METHODS

In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest).

RESULTS

Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61-1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57-1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98-1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Coronary Revascularization and Long-Term Survivorship in Chronic Coronary Syndrome

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) persists as the leading cause of death in the Western world. In recent decades, great headway has been made in reducing mortality due to IHD, based around secondary prevention. The advent of coronary revascularization techniques, first coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the 1960s and then percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the 1970s, has represented one of the major breakthroughs in medicine during the last century. The benefit provided by these techniques, especially PCI, has been crucial in lowering mortality rates in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, in the setting where IHD is most prevalent, namely chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), the increase in life expectancy provided by coronary revascularization is controversial. Over more than 40 years, several clinical trials have been carried out comparing optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone with a strategy of routine coronary revascularization on top of OMT. Beyond a certain degree of symptomatic improvement and lower incidence of minor events, routine invasive management has not demonstrated a convincing effect in terms of reducing mortality in CCS. Based on the accumulated evidence more than half a century after the first revascularization procedures were used, invasive management should be considered in those patients with uncontrolled symptoms despite OMT or high-risk features related to left ventricular function, coronary anatomy, or functional assessment, taking into account the patient expectations and preferences.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chest Pain-Possible Acute Coronary Syndrome

Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits and inpatient evaluation, with particular concern for acute coronary syndrome as an etiology, since cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. Although history-based, electrocardiographic, and laboratory evaluations have shown promise in identifying coronary artery disease, early accurate diagnosis is paramount and there is an important role for imaging examinations to determine the presence and extent of anatomic coronary abnormality and ischemic physiology, to guide management with regard to optimal medical therapy or revascularization, and ultimately to thereby improve patient outcomes. A summary of the various methods for initial imaging evaluation of suspected acute coronary syndrome is outlined in this document. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Baseline Characteristics and Risk Profiles of Participants in the ISCHEMIA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

It is unknown whether coronary revascularization, when added to optimal medical therapy, improves prognosis in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) at increased risk of cardiovascular events owing to moderate or severe ischemia.

Objective

To describe baseline characteristics of participants enrolled and randomized in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and to evaluate whether qualification by stress imaging or nonimaging exercise tolerance test (ETT) influenced risk profiles.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The ISCHEMIA trial recruited patients with SIHD with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Blinded coronary computed tomography angiography was performed in most participants and reviewed by a core laboratory to exclude left main stenosis of at least 50% or no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) (<50% for imaging stress test and <70% for ETT). The study included 341 enrolling sites (320 randomizing) in 38 countries and patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Data presented were extracted on December 17, 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Enrolled, excluded, and randomized participants' baseline characteristics. No clinical outcomes are reported.

Results

A total of 8518 patients were enrolled, and 5179 were randomized. Common reasons for exclusion were core laboratory determination of insufficient ischemia, unprotected left main stenosis of at least 50%, or no stenosis that met study obstructive CAD criteria on study coronary computed tomography angiography. Randomized participants had a median age of 64 years, with 1168 women (22.6%), 1726 nonwhite participants (33.7%), 748 Hispanic participants (15.5%), 2122 with diabetes (41.0%), and 4643 with a history of angina (89.7%). Among the 3909 participants randomized after stress imaging, core laboratory assessment of ischemia severity (in 3901 participants) was severe in 1748 (44.8%), moderate in 1600 (41.0%), mild in 317 (8.1%) and none or uninterpretable in 236 (6.0%), Among the 1270 participants who were randomized after nonimaging ETT, core laboratory determination of ischemia severity (in 1266 participants) was severe (an eligibility criterion) in 1051 (83.0%), moderate in 101 (8.0%), mild in 34 (2.7%) and none or uninterpretable in 80 (6.3%). Among the 3912 of 5179 randomized participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, 79.0% had multivessel CAD (n = 2679 of 3390) and 86.8% had left anterior descending (LAD) stenosis (n = 3190 of 3677) (proximal in 46.8% [n = 1749 of 3739]). Participants undergoing ETT had greater frequency of 3-vessel CAD, LAD, and proximal LAD stenosis than participants undergoing stress imaging.

Conclusions and Relevance

The ISCHEMIA trial randomized an SIHD population with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing, of whom most had multivessel CAD.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522.

12-year Temporal Trend in Referral Pattern and Test Results of Stress Echocardiography in a Tertiary Care Referral Center with Moderate Volume Activities and Cath-lab Facility

Background

Data on stress echocardiography (SE) time-related changes in referral patterns and diagnostic yield for detection of inducible ischemia could enhance Echo Lab quality benchmarks and performance measures.

Aim

This study aims to evaluate temporal trends in SE test results among ambulatory patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD) in a tertiary care referral center with moderate (>100/year) volume SE activities and Cath-Lab facility.

Methods

From January 2004 to December 2015, 1954 patients (mean age 62 ± 12 years, 42% women, 27% with known CAD) underwent SE (1673 exercise SE, 86%, 246 pharmacological SE, 12%, 35 pacing SE, 2%). Time was grouped into three 4 year periods, where clinical data and test results were evaluated.

Results

Our series comprised low-to-intermediate pretest probability of CAD throughout the observation period (overall pretest probability of CAD 19% ± 15%). A progressive decline over time in the rate of pharmacological SE instead of a dramatic increment of exercise SE (79%-96%, P < 0.0001) was noted. The use of beta-blockers increased (from 43% to 66%, P < 0.0001), while the use of nitrates decreased (from 11% to 4%, P < 0.0001) over time. We noted a very uncommon occurrence of abnormal test results with a further decrease in the last period (from 11% to 3%, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

We observed, over a 12-year period, a progressive decrease in the frequency of inducible myocardial ischemia among patients with known or suspected CADe referred to our Echo Lab for SE with Cath-Lab facility, and this trend was parallel to changes in SE referral practice. These findings are particularly relevant if we consider the practical implications on diagnostic SE accuracy and risk assessment.

Impact of Early Coronary Revascularization on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Myocardial Ischemia on Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography

The role of early coronary revascularization in the management of stable coronary artery disease remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of early coronary revascularization on long-term outcomes (>10 years) after an ischemic dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Patients without stress-induced ischemia on DSE and those who underwent late coronary revascularization (>90 days after DSE) were excluded. The final study cohort consisted of 905 patients. A DSE with a peak wall motion score index of 1.1 to 1.7 was considered mild to moderately abnormal (n = 460), and >1.7 was markedly abnormal (n = 445). End points were all-cause and cardiac mortality. The impact of early coronary revascularization on outcomes was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox's proportional hazard regression models. Early coronary revascularization was performed in 222 patients (percutaneous coronary intervention in 113 [51%] and coronary artery bypass grafting in 109 patients [49%]). During a median follow-up time of 10 years (range 8 to 15), 474 deaths (52%) occurred, of which were 241 (51%) due to cardiac causes. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that both in patients with a markedly abnormal DSE and a mild-to-moderately abnormal DSE, early revascularization was associated with better long-term outcomes. Multivariable analyses revealed that early revascularization had a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.79) and cardiac mortality (hazard ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.72). In conclusion, early coronary revascularization has a beneficial impact on long-term outcomes in patients with myocardial ischemia on DSE. Early coronary revascularization was associated with better outcomes not only in patients with a markedly abnormal DSE but also in those with a mild to moderately abnormal DSE.

Prognostic Value of Stress Echocardiography in Patients With Low-Intermediate or High Short-Term (10 Years) Versus Low (<39%) or High (≥39%) Lifetime Predicted Risk of Cardiovascular Disease According to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 Cardiovascular Risk Calculator

This study evaluates the prognostic value of stress echocardiography (Secho) in short-term (10 years) and lifetime atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk-defined groups according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 cardiovascular risk calculator. The ideal risk assessment and management of patients with low-to-intermediate or high short-term versus low (<39%) or high (≥39%) lifetime CV risk is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of Secho in short-term and lifetime CV risk-defined groups. We evaluated 4,566 patients (60 ± 13 years; 46% men) who underwent Secho (41% treadmill and 59% dobutamine) with low-intermediate short-term (<20%) risk divided into low (<39%, n = 368) or high (≥39%, n = 661) lifetime CV risk and third group with high short-term risk (≥20%, n = 3,537). Follow-up (3.2 ± 1.5 years) for nonfatal myocardial infarction (n = 102) and cardiac death (n = 140) were obtained. By univariate analysis, age (p <0.001) and ≥3 new ischemic wall motion abnormalities (WMAs, p <0.001) were significant predictors of cardiac events. Cumulative survival in patients was significantly worse in patients with ≥3 WMA versus <3 WMA in low-intermediate short-term and low (3.3% vs 0.3% per year, p <0.001) or high (2.0% vs 0% per year, p <0.001) lifetime risk and also in those with high short-term CV risk group (3.5% vs 1.0% per year, p <0.001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis identified ≥3 new ischemic WMAs as the strongest predictor of cardiac events (hazard ratio 3.0, 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 3.9, p <0.001). In conclusion, Secho results (absence or presence of ≥3 new ischemic segments) can further refine risk assessment in patients with low-intermediate or high short-term versus low or high lifetime cardiovascular risk. Event rate with normal Secho is low (≤1% per year) but higher in patients with high short-term CV risk by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 2013 cardiovascular risk calculator.

Utilization of stress echocardiography in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of stress echocardiography in the risk stratification and prognosis of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

BACKGROUND

Stress echocardiography is an established technique for diagnosis, risk stratification, and prognosis of patients with known or suspected CAD.

METHODS

We evaluated 409 patients (65 ± 10 years; 63% men) referred for stress echocardiography (45% treadmill, 55% dobutamine), who underwent stress echocardiography and coronary angiography within 3 months. All patients had multivessel CAD as defined by coronary stenosis (≥50% left main or ≥70% in two or more major epicardial vessels or branches). The left ventricle was divided into 16 segments and was scored on a five-point scale of wall motion. Patients with abnormal results on stress echocardiography were defined as those with stress-induced ischemia (increase in wall motion score of ≥1 grade).

RESULTS

Follow-up (3.1 ± 1.3 years) for nonfatal myocardial infarction (n = 35) and cardiac death (n = 25) was obtained. In patients with multivessel CAD, stress echocardiography effectively risk-stratified normal (no ischemia, n = 83) vs. abnormal (ischemia, n = 326) groups for cardiac events (event rate 1.9 vs. 5.4%/year; P < 0.01). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression model identified stress-induced ischemia (hazard ratio 5.5, 95% confidence interval 1.9-15.9, P = 0.002) as the most significant predictor of adverse cardiac events. A stepwise Cox proportional-hazards model demonstrated significant incremental prognostic value of stress echocardiography over clinical variables, stress electrocardiography and resting left ventricular function (P < 0.0001), with the highest global chi-square value.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with angiographically significant multivessel CAD, despite normal-stress echocardiography, there was an intermediate cardiac event rate (1.9%/year); abnormal-stress echocardiography identified a high-risk group (5.4%/year); and stress echocardiography provided incremental prognostic value for risk stratification and prediction of cardiac events.

Comparative definitions for moderate-severe ischemia in stress nuclear, echocardiography, and magnetic resonance imaging

The lack of standardized reporting of the magnitude of ischemia on noninvasive imaging contributes to variability in translating the severity of ischemia across stress imaging modalities. We identified the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) death or myocardial infarction (MI) associated with ≥10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging as the risk threshold for stress echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. A narrative review revealed that ≥10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging was associated with a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.9%/year (interquartile range: 3.75% to 5.3%). For stress echocardiography, ≥3 newly dysfunctional segments portend a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.5%/year (interquartile range: 3.8% to 5.9%). Although imprecisely delineated, moderate-severe ischemia on cardiac magnetic resonance may be indicated by ≥4 of 32 stress perfusion defects or ≥3 dobutamine-induced dysfunctional segments. Risk-based thresholds can define equivalent amounts of ischemia across the stress imaging modalities, which will help to translate a common understanding of patient risk on which to guide subsequent management decisions.

Meta-analysis of prognostic implications of dyspnea versus chest pain in patients referred for stress testing

Previous studies have suggested that patients with dyspnea referred for stress testing have high mortality. However, it is not clear whether this is explained by high rates of ischemia. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the incidence of ischemia in patients with dyspnea compared with patients with chest pain referred for stress testing and assess the outcomes of such patients. We systematically searched the electronic databases, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, until December 2012 to identify studies of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease undergoing stress testing. We extracted data on group-specific incidence of stress-induced ischemia and all-cause mortality. In our analyses, we identified and included 6 studies that evaluated a total of 5,753 patients with dyspnea and 24,491 patients with chest pain as the clinical indication for stress testing. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of ischemia on stress imaging in patients with dyspnea compared with patients with chest pain (37.4% vs 30.2%, odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.06, p = 0.06). However, during the follow-up period, patients with dyspnea had higher all-cause mortality rates compared with patients with chest pain (annual mortality 4.9% vs 2.3%), with odds ratio of 2.57 (95% confidence interval 1.75 to 3.76, p <0.001). In conclusion, in patients undergoing stress testing, those evaluated for dyspnea had a significant increase in all-cause mortality but did not have higher rates of ischemia compared with patients presenting with chest pain. Clinicians evaluating patients with self-reported dyspnea should be aware that these patients represent a high-risk group with increased risk of mortality.

Prognostic value of stress echocardiogram in patients with angiographically significant coronary artery disease

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of stress echocardiography in patients with angiographically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). Two hundred sixty patients (mean age 63 ± 10 years, 58% men) who underwent stress echocardiography (41% treadmill, 59% dobutamine) and coronary angiography within 3 months and without intervening coronary revascularization were evaluated. All patients had significant CAD as defined by coronary stenosis ≥70% in major epicardial vessels or branches (45% had single-vessel disease, and 55% had multivessel disease). The left ventricle was divided into 16 segments and scored on a 5-point scale of wall motion. Patients with abnormal results on stress echocardiography were defined as those with stress-induced ischemia (increase in wall motion score of ≥1 grade). Follow-up (3.1 ± 1.2 years) for nonfatal myocardial infarction (n = 23) and cardiac death (n = 6) was obtained. In patients with angiographically significant CAD, stress echocardiography effectively risk stratified normal (no ischemia, n = 91) in contrast to abnormal (ischemia, n = 169) groups for cardiac events (event rate 1.0%/year vs 4.9%/year, p = 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified multivessel CAD (hazard ratio 2.53, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 5.51, p = 0.02) and number of segments in which ischemia was present (hazard ratio 4.31, 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 14.38, p = 0.01) as predictors of cardiac events. A Cox proportional-hazards model for cardiac events showed small, significant incremental value of stress echocardiography over coronary angiography (p = 0.02) and the highest global chi-square value for both (p = 0.004). In conclusion, in patients with angiographically significant CAD, (1) normal results on stress echocardiography conferred a benign prognosis (event rate 1.0%/year), and (2) stress echocardiographic results (no ischemia vs ischemia) added incremental prognostic value to coronary angiographic results, and (3) stress echocardiography and coronary angiography together provided additive prognostic value, with the highest global chi-square value.

Recent advances in stress echocardiography

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the recent advances in stress echocardiography, with particular attention to articles published in 2010 and 2011. It summarizes the developments in the diagnostic and prognostic capabilities of stress echocardiography, discusses new data regarding the safety of stress echocardiography, and highlights emerging roles for stress echocardiography in the areas of left ventricular assist devices, cardiac transplantation, strain-rate echocardiography, and myocardial perfusion imaging.

RECENT FINDINGS

Stress echocardiography represents a well validated tool in the diagnosis and assessment of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease. Recently, data have emerged supporting the prognostic capabilities of stress echocardiography in patients with various levels of systolic dysfunction, diastolic abnormalities, and valvular heart disease. New studies continue to document the safety of stress echocardiography, particularly with regard to arrhythmias, neuropsychiatric symptoms, dosing of dobutamine, and intravenous contrast. Studies are now suggesting that stress echocardiography may play novel roles in the evaluation of patients with left ventricular assist devices or potential donors for cardiac transplantation. Technologic developments in myocardial contrast perfusion imaging, three-dimensional imaging, and strain-rate echocardiography will continue to advance the field.

SUMMARY

Stress echocardiography represents a dynamic, versatile, and well validated tool for the noninvasive assessment of patients with a wide spectrum of cardiovascular diseases.

Clinical applications of cardiac CT angiography

ECG-gated multislice CT provides a cost-effective, non-invasive technology for evaluation of the coronary arteries, as well as for additional clinical applications, which require morphological assessment of the heart and adjacent structures with simultaneous evaluation of the coronary circulation.The excellent negative predictive value of a normal coronary CTA (cCTA) examination excludes the presence of significant coronary disease in the symptomatic patient. Triple rule-out studies provide evaluation of the aorta and pulmonary arteries without loss of image quality in the coronary circulation. The ability to visualize surrounding vascular structures along with the coronary arteries is essential in the evaluation of coronary anomalies.Cardiac CTA is useful in non-coronary applications, including evaluation of the thoracic aorta, cardiac valves and other aspects of cardiac morphology that may require surgical or percutaneous repair. Although radiation exposure is a limitation of cCTA relative to echocardiography and MRI, recent technological advances allow coronary imaging with effective doses as low as 1 mSv.Recent advances in evaluation of coronary plaque morphology as well as myocardial perfusion will allow a more complete noninvasive cardiac assessment in the future and may provide a highly effective method of cardiac risk stratification to facilitate preventive cardiac care.