Patient Outcome Following 2 Different Stress Imaging Approaches: A Prospective Randomized Comparison

The study sought to prospectively compare patient outcome after stress real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography (RTMCE) versus conventional stress echo (CSE), where contrast is used to optimize wall motion (WM) analysis. Myocardial perfusion imaging with RTMCE may improve the detection of coro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 61; no. 24; pp. 2446 - 2455
Main Authors PORTER, Thomas R, SMITH, Lynette M, THERRIEN, Stacey, FENG XIE, JUEFEI WU, THOMAS, Deepak, HAAS, John T, MATHERS, Daniel H, WILLIAMS, Eric, OLSON, Joan, NALTY, Kevin, HESS, Roberta
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, NY Elsevier 18.06.2013
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The study sought to prospectively compare patient outcome after stress real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography (RTMCE) versus conventional stress echo (CSE), where contrast is used to optimize wall motion (WM) analysis. Myocardial perfusion imaging with RTMCE may improve the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD), and predict patient outcome. Patients with intermediate to high pre-test probability referred for dobutamine or exercise stress echocardiography were prospectively randomized to either RTMCE or CSE. Definity contrast was used for CSE only when endocardial border delineation was inadequate (63% of studies). Studies were interpreted by either an experienced contrast reviewer (R1; n = 1257), or 4 Level 3 echocardiographers (R2) with basic contrast training (n = 806). Death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularizations were recorded at follow-up. Follow-up was available in 2,014 patients (median 2.6 years). Mean age was 59 ± 13 years (53% women). An abnormal RTMCE was more frequently observed than an abnormal CSE (p < 0.001), and more frequently resulted in revascularization (p = 0.004). Resting WM abnormalities were also more frequently seen with RTMCE (p < 0.01), and were an independent predictor of death/nonfatal MI (p = 0.005) for RTMCE, but not CSE. The predictive value of a positive study, whether with CSE or RTMCE, was significant for both R1 and R2 reviewers in predicting the combined endpoint, but R1 was better than R2 at predicting patients at risk for death or nonfatal MI. Perfusion imaging with RTMCE improves the detection of CAD during stress echocardiography, and identifies those more likely to undergo revascularization following an abnormal study.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-News-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ISSN:0735-1097
1558-3597
DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.019