Optimizing the Assessment of Patient Clinical Risk at the Time of Cardiac Stress Testing

Use of a Single-item Exercise Questionnaire Predicts Prognostic Risk among Patients undergoing Stress PET-MPI

BACKGROUND

Exercise activity reduces mortality and favorably influences mediators of risk, including myocardial flow reserve (MFR) and chronotropic responsiveness. Comprehensive research regarding the relationship between exercise activity, MFR, and chronotropic response to pharmacological stress, as assessed by heart rate response (HRR) among patients undergoing PET myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has not been performed. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between exercise activity as assessed by a practical single-item questionnaire, MFR and HRR, and longitudinal clinical risk.

METHODS

We studied outpatients who underwent pharmacological stress rubidium-82. PET-MPI and answered a self-reported one-item exercise activity questionnaire (0-10 scale) at the time of PET-MPI. HRR was calculated by the following equation: (stress HR-rest HR)/rest HR*100 (%). The primary outcome was death or myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

Of 1,686 patients, 221 (13%) patients had hard events during our mean follow up of 3.8 years. Patients were divided into four groups: no/minimal exercise (n=551), low exercise (n=468), moderate exercise (n=485), and high exercise (n=182) based on the questionnaire. MFR and HRR increased with exercise activity in a stepwise manner. By Cox analysis adjusted for clinical and PET-MPI variables including MFR and HRR, exercise activity was independently associated with hard events (HR [95%CI] per activity scale, 0.95 [0.91-0.99]; p=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with higher exercise activity assessed by a practical single-item questionnaire had higher MFR and HRR. Exercise activity was an independent predictor of hard events in patients undergoing PET-MPI. Because of its ease of use, this single-item questionnaire should be applied among patients undergoing stress MPI.

Multiple Phenotypes of Chronic Coronary Syndromes Identified by ABCDE Stress Echocardiography

BACKGROUND

Regional wall motion abnormality is considered a sensitive and specific marker of ischemia during stress echocardiography (SE). However, ischemia is a multifaceted entity associated with either coronary artery disease (CAD) or angina with normal coronary arteries, a distinction difficult to make using a single sign. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic potential of the five-step ABCDE SE protocol for CAD detection.

METHODS

From the 2016-2022 Stress Echo 2030 study data bank, 3,229 patients were selected (mean age, 66 ± 12 years; 2,089 men [65%]) with known CAD (n = 1,792) or angina with normal coronary arteries (n = 1,437). All patients were studied using both the ABCDE SE protocol and coronary angiography, within 3 months. In step A, regional wall motion abnormality is assessed; in step B, B-lines and diastolic function; in step C, left ventricular contractile reserve; in step D, coronary flow velocity reserve in the left anterior descending coronary artery; and in step E, heart rate reserve.

RESULTS

SE response ranged from a score of 0 (all steps normal) to a score of 5 (all steps abnormal). For CAD, rates of abnormal results were 347 for step A (19.4%), 547 (30.5%) for step B, 720 (40.2%) for step C, 615 (34.3%) for step D, and 633 (35.3%) for step E. For angina with normal coronary arteries, rates of abnormal results were 81 (5.6%) for step A, 429 (29.9%) for step B, 432 (30.1%) for step C, 354 (24.6%) for step D, and 445 (31.0%) for step E. The dominant "solitary phenotype" was step B in 109 patients (9.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Stress-induced ischemia presents with a wide range of diagnostic phenotypes, highlighting its complex nature. Using a comprehensive approach such as the advanced ABCDE score, which combines multiple markers, proves to be more valuable than relying on a single marker in isolation.

Comparative predictors of mortality among patients referred for stress single-photon emission computed tomography versus positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging

BACKGROUND

There is currently little information regarding the usage and comparative predictors of mortality among patients referred for single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) versus positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) within multimodality imaging laboratories.

METHODS

We compared the clinical characteristics and mortality outcomes among 15,718 patients referred for SPECT-MPI and 6202 patients referred for PET-MPI between 2008 and 2017.

RESULTS

Approximately two-thirds of MPI studies were performed using SPECT-MPI. The PET-MPI group was substantially older and included more patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD), hypertension, diabetes, and myocardial ischemia. The annualized mortality rate was also higher in the PET-MPI group, and this difference persisted after propensity matching 3615 SPECT-MPI and 3615 PET-MPI patients to have similar clinical profiles. Among the SPECT-MPI patients, the most potent predictor of mortality was exercise ability and performance, including consideration of patients' mode of stress testing and exercise duration. Among the PET-MPI patients, myocardial flow reserve (MFR) was the most potent predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In our real-world setting, PET-MPI was more commonly employed among older patients with more cardiac risk factors than SPECT-MPI patients. The most potent predictors of mortality in our SPECT and PET-MPI groups were variables exclusive to each test: exercise ability/capacity for SPECT-MPI patients and MFR for PET-MPI patients.

Assessment of lifestyle-related risk factors enhances the effectiveness of cardiac stress testing

Cardiac stress tests have been widely utilized since the 1960s for the diagnostic and prognostic assessment of patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Clinical risk is primarily based on assessing the presence and magnitude of inducible myocardial ischemia. However, the primary factors driving mortality risk have changed over recent decades. Factors such as typical angina and inducible ischemia have decreased, whereas the percentage of patients with diabetes, obesity and hypertension have increased. There has also been a marked temporal increase in the percentage of patients who require pharmacologic testing due to inability to perform treadmill exercise at the time of cardiac stress testing and this need has emerged as the most potent predictor of mortality risk in contemporary stress test populations. However, the long-term clinical risk posed by the inability to perform exercise and concomitant CAD risk factors are rarely reflected in the assessment of patients' prognostic risk in cardiac stress test reports. In this review, we suggest that the clinical utility of present-day cardiac stress testing can be improved by developing a more comprehensive assessment that integrates and reports all factors which modulate patients' long-term clinical risk following stress testing. This should include assessment of patients' CAD risk factors, physical activity habits and mobility risks, identification of the reasons why patients could not exercise at the time of cardiac stress testing. In addition, the assessment of four core non-aerobic functional parameters should be considered among patients who cannot exercise: assessment of gait speed, handgrip strength, lower extremity strength, and standing balance.

Comparison of diabetes to other prognostic predictors among patients referred for cardiac stress testing: A contemporary analysis from the REFINE SPECT Registry

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is increasingly prevalent among contemporary populations referred for cardiac stress testing, but its potency as a predictor for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) vs other clinical variables is not well delineated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From 19,658 patients who underwent SPECT-MPI, we identified 3122 patients with DM without known coronary artery disease (CAD) (DM+/CAD-) and 3564 without DM with known CAD (DM-/CAD+). Propensity score matching was used to control for the differences in characteristics between DM+/CAD- and DM-/CAD+ groups. There was comparable MACE in the matched DM+/CAD- and DM-/CAD+ groups (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97-1.37). By Chi-square analysis, type of stress (exercise or pharmacologic), total perfusion deficit (TPD), and left ventricular function were the most potent predictors of MACE, followed by CAD and DM status. The combined consideration of mode of stress, TPD, and DM provided synergistic stratification, an 8.87-fold (HR 8.87, 95% CI 7.27-10.82) increase in MACE among pharmacologically stressed patients with DM and TPD > 10% (vs non-ischemic, exercised stressed patients without DM).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity-matched patients with DM and no known CAD have similar MACE risk compared to patients with known CAD and no DM. DM is synergistic with mode of stress testing and TPD in predicting the risk of cardiac stress test patients.

Mortality risk among patients undergoing exercise versus pharmacologic myocardial perfusion imaging: A propensity-based comparison

BACKGROUND

The increased risk associated with pharmacologic versus exercise testing is obscured by the higher prevalence of clinical risk factors among pharmacologic patients. Thus, we assessed comparative mortality in a large risk factor-matched group of exercise versus pharmacologic patients undergoing stress/rest SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI).

METHODS

39,179 patients undergoing stress/rest SPECT-MPI were followed for 13.3 ± 5.0 years for all-cause mortality (ACM). We applied propensity-matching to create pharmacologic and exercise groups with similar risk profiles.

RESULTS

In comparison to exercise patients, pharmacologic patients had an increased risk-adjusted hazard ratio for ACM for each level of ischemia: increased by 3.8-fold (95%CI 3.5-4.1) among nonischemic patients, 2.5-fold (95%CI 2.0-3.2) among mildly ischemic patients, and 2.6-fold (95%CI 2.1-3.3) among moderate/severe ischemic patients. Similar findings were observed among a propensity-matched cohort of 10,113 exercise and 10,113 pharmacologic patients as well as in an additional cohort that also excluded patients with noncardiac co-morbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients requiring pharmacologic stress testing manifest substantially heightened clinical risk at each level of myocardial ischemia and even when myocardial ischemia is absent. These findings suggest the need to study the pathophysiological drivers of increased risk in association with pharmacologic testing and to convey this risk in clinical reports.